Bureau of Land Management 

Worland Field Office

Approved

Resource Management Plan

ATTACHMENT 12

From the USDI 2015 Record of Decision and Approved Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for the Rocky Mountain Region including the Greater

Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of: Lewistown, North Dakota, Northwest Colorado and 

Wyoming and the Approved Resource Management Plans for Billings, Buffalo, Cody, 

HiLine, Miles City, Pompeys Pillar National Monument, South Dakota and Worland

September 2015

BLM

Worland Field Office
BLM/WY/PL-15/021+1610

MISSION STATEMENT

To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public 

lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future 

generations.
Worland Approved RMP iii

September 2015 Table of Contents

Table of Contents 

State Director Recommendation for Approval ............................................................................ xv

Acronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... xvii

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1. Description of the Planning Area ...................................................................................... 1

1.2. Purpose and Need .............................................................................................................. 4

1.2.1. Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 4

1.2.2. Need for Revising the Existing Plan ........................................................................ 4

1.3. Planning Criteria ............................................................................................................... 6

2. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat ........................... 9

2.1. Description of Greater Sage-Grouse HabitatManagement Areas ................................... 11

2.2. Worland Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Summary .............................. 14

2.2.1. Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 19

3. Approved Resource Management Plan .................................................................................. 45

3.1. Approved Resource Management Plan Instructions ....................................................... 47

3.2. Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions .............................................................. 47

4. Consultation, Coordination, and Public Involvement ........................................................ 141

4.1. Consultation and Coordination ..................................................................................... 143

4.2. Public Involvement ....................................................................................................... 144

5. Plan Implementation ............................................................................................................. 147

5.1. Implementing the Plan .................................................................................................. 149

5.2. Maintaining the Plan ..................................................................................................... 149

5.3. Changing the Plan ......................................................................................................... 150

5.4. Plan Evaluation, Adaptive Management, and Monitoring ............................................ 150

6. References ............................................................................................................................... 153

Glossary ......................................................................................................................................... 161

Appendix A. Maps ........................................................................................................................ 207
iv Worland Approved RMP

Table of Contents September 2015

Appendix B. Oil and Gas Lease Notices and Lease Stipulations, including Exception,

Modification, and Waiver Criteria .................................................................................. 211

B.1. Lease Notices ................................................................................................................. 211

B.2. Lease Stipulations ........................................................................................................... 214

B.3. Processing Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers........................................................246

Appendix C. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices .............................. 249

C.1. Bureau of Land Management Best Management Practices Resources ........................... 249

C.2. Other Agency BMP Resources ....................................................................................... 251

C.3. Greater Sage-Grouse: Required Design Features and Best Management Practices ....... 252

C.3.1. Required Design Features .................................................................................... 253

C.4. Best Management Practices ............................................................................................ 262

C.4.1. Best Management Practices for Important Cultural Resource and Trail

Settings ............................................................................................................... 262

C.4.2. Decontamination Procedure for Aquatic Invasive Species .................................. 262

C.4.3. Wyoming Forestry Best Management Practices .................................................. 263

C.4.4. Reseeding Best Management Practices ............................................................... 263

C.4.5. Engineering Best Management Practices ............................................................ 263

C.4.6. Best Management Practices for Livestock Grazing ............................................. 266

C.4.7. Best Management Practices for Visual Resources ............................................... 267

C.4.8. Best Management Practices for Water Resources ............................................... 268

C.4.9. Best Management Practices for GreaterSage-Grouse Protection ........................269

Appendix D. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Strategy ......................................... 271

D.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 271

D.2. COT Objective 1: Stop Population Declines and Habitat Loss ...................................... 273

D.3. COT Objective 2: Implement Targeted Habitat Management and Restoration ............. 288

D.4. COT Objective 3: Develop and Implement State and Federal Conservation

Strategies and Associated Incentive-based Conservation Actions and Regulatory

Mechanisms ................................................................................................................ 289

D.4.1. Implementation Working Groups ........................................................................ 289

D.4.2. Implementation Tracking .................................................................................... 290

D.4.3. Public Involvement ............................................................................................. 291

D.5. COT Objective 4: Proactive Conservation Actions ....................................................... 291

D.6. COT Objective 5: Development of Monitoring Plans .................................................... 293

D.6.1. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework ..................................................... 294

D.6.2. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 294

D.6.3. Broad and Mid-Scales ......................................................................................... 298

D.6.3.1. Implementation (Decision) Monitoring ................................................... 298

D.6.3.2. Habitat (Vegetation) Monitoring .............................................................. 299

D.6.3.3. Population (Demographics) Monitoring .................................................. 316

D.6.3.4. Effectiveness Monitoring ......................................................................... 317

D.6.4. Fine and Site Scales ............................................................................................. 321

D.6.5. Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 323

D.6.6. The BLM Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance and Monitoring Sub-Team

Membership ........................................................................................................ 323
Worland Approved RMP v

September 2015 Table of Contents

D.6.7. ATTACHMENT A: An Overview of Monitoring Commitments ........................ 327

D.6.8. ATTACHMENT B: List of All Sagebrush Species and Subspecies Included

in the Selection Criteria for Building the EVT andBpS Layers ........................ 328

D.6.9. ATTACHMENT C: User and Producer Accuracies for Aggregated Ecological

Systems within LANDFIRE Map Zones ............................................................ 329

D.7. COT Objective 6: Prioritize, Fund, and Implement Research To Address Existing

Uncertainties ............................................................................................................... 330

D.7.1. Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive Management Plan ............................. 330

Appendix E. Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Guidance .......................................................... 335

Appendix F. Wyoming Bureau of Land Management Mitigation Guidelines for

Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities ................................................................ 349

F.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 349

F.2. Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 349

F.3. Mitigation Guidelines...................................................................................................... 350

F.3.1. Surface Disturbance Mitigation Guideline ........................................................... 350

F.3.2. Wildlife Mitigation Guideline .............................................................................. 350

F.3.3. Cultural Resource Mitigation Guideline .............................................................. 352

F.3.4. Special Resource Mitigation Guideline ................................................................ 353

F.3.5. No Surface Occupancy Guideline ........................................................................ 353

F.3.6. Regional Mitigation Guideline ............................................................................. 354

Appendix G. Federal Oil and Gas Operations onSplit-Estate Lands ..................................... 355

G.1. Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 355

G.2. Definitions ...................................................................................................................... 355

G.3. General ........................................................................................................................... 356

G.4. Operations ...................................................................................................................... 356

G.4.1. Geophysical ......................................................................................................... 356

G.4.2. Notice of Staking/Application for Permitto Drill ............................................... 358

G.4.2.1. Surveying and Staking Activities ............................................................. 358

G.4.2.2. Onsite Inspection(s) ................................................................................. 358

G.4.2.3. Required Components of a Complete Application for Permit to Drill

for Split-estate Operations .......................................................................... 359

G.4.2.4. Approval of the Application for Permit to Drill ....................................... 361

G.4.3. Sundry Notices .................................................................................................... 361

G.4.3.1. Emergency Operations ............................................................................. 362

Appendix H. Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................... 365

H.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 365

H.2. Data Collection .............................................................................................................. 365

H.3. Data Analysis ................................................................................................................. 365

H.4. Decision ......................................................................................................................... 366

H.5. Establishment of Monitoring Protocols .......................................................................... 366

H.6. Resource Monitoring Table....................................................................................................366
vi Worland Approved RMP

Table of Contents September 2015

Appendix I. Land Disposal and Acquisition ............................................................................... 379

I.1. Land Tenure Descriptions ................................................................................................ 379

I.2. Lands Available for Disposal ........................................................................................... 379

I.3. Criteria for Retention, Acquisition, or Disposal .............................................................. 386

I.3.1. Criteria for Retention or Acquisition .................................................................... 386

I.3.1.1. Criteria for Disposal ................................................................................... 387

I.3.1.2. Recreation and Public Purposes Lease/Patent ........................................... 388

I.3.1.3. Airport Grants ............................................................................................ 388

I.3.1.4. Desert Land Entries ................................................................................... 388

I.4. Access and Easements ..................................................................................................... 389

Appendix J. Recreation Management ........................................................................................ 391

Appendix K. Biological Opinion ................................................................................................. 439

Appendix L. Implementation ...................................................................................................... 545

L.1. General ........................................................................................................................... 545

L.2. Implementation Working Group ..................................................................................... 545

L.3. Implementation Tracking Database ................................................................................ 545

L.4. Monitoring Working Group ............................................................................................ 545

L.5. Activity Plan Working Groups........................................................................................ 546

L.6. Public Involvement ......................................................................................................... 546

Appendix M. Bighorn Basin Air ResourceManagement Plan ................................................. 547

M.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 547

M.1.1. Background ........................................................................................................ 547

M.1.2. Purpose ............................................................................................................... 550

M.1.3. Characterization of Air Resources in the Environmental Impact Statement ...... 551

M.1.3.1. Emissions Inventory for Land Use Planning ........................................... 551

M.1.3.2. Class I Areas ............................................................................................ 551

M.2. Air Resources Management Plan................................................................................... 551

M.2.1. Resource Inventory and Characterization ........................................................... 551

M.2.2. Permitting ........................................................................................................... 552

M.2.3. Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 553

M.2.4. Modeling ............................................................................................................ 554

M.2.5. Mitigation ........................................................................................................... 554

M.2.6. Contingency Plans .............................................................................................. 555

Appendix N. Seasonal Raptor Stipulations for All Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive

Activities ............................................................................................................................ 561

Appendix O. Livestock Grazing .................................................................................................. 563
Worland Approved RMP vii

September 2015 Table of Contents

Appendix P. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision Crosswalk

Tables............................................................................................................................................583
This page intentionally 

left blank
Worland Approved RMP ix

September 2015 List of Figures

List of Figures

Figure 1.1. Worland Field Office Resource Management Plan Planning Area .................................. 3

Figure 2.1. Worland Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas for

BLM-Administered Lands ................................................................................................... 13

Figure D.1. Priority Habitat Management Areas and General Habitat Management Areas

within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area ............................................................................ 273

Figure D.2. Proposed Project Boundary ......................................................................................... 278

Figure D.3. DDCT Assessment Area ............................................................................................. 279

Figure D.4. DDCT Assessment Area – Existing Disturbance ........................................................ 280

Figure D.5. DDCT Assessment Area – Existing Disturbance (cont.) ............................................ 280

Figure D.6. DDCT Assessment Area – Existing Disturbance with Buffer .................................... 281

Figure D.7. DDCT Assessment Area – Existing Disturbance withBuffer (cont.) ......................... 281

Figure D.8. DDCT Assessment Area – Existing Disruptive Features ............................................ 282

Figure D.9. DDCT Assessment Area – Existing DisruptiveFeatures Buffer ................................ 283

Figure D.10. DDCT Assessment Area – Existing Disruptive FeaturesBuffer (cont.) ................... 283

Figure D.11. Greater Sage-Grouse Range, Populations, Subpopulations and Priority Areas for

Conservation as of 2013 ..................................................................................................... 295

Figure M.1. Visibility – Standard Visual Range (SVR, miles) for the North Absaroka,

Wyoming, IMPROVE Site ................................................................................................. 549

Figure M.2. Visibility – Standard Visual Range (SVR, miles) for the Cloud Peak, Wyoming,

IMPROVE Site ................................................................................................................... 549
This page intentionally 

left blank
Worland Approved RMP xi

September 2015 List of Maps

List of Maps 

Map 1-1. Worland Planning Area, Surface Management and Sub-Surface Estate ......................... 207

Map 1-2. Worland Planning Area, Greater Sage Grouse Habitat Management Areas across All

Jurisdictions ........................................................................................................................ 207

Map 1-3. Worland Decision Area, Greater Sage Grouse Habitat Management Areas for BLM

Administered Lands ........................................................................................................... 207

Map 2-1. Worland Habitat Management Areas .............................................................................. 207

Map 2-2. Worland Livestock Grazing ............................................................................................ 207

Map 2-3. Worland Fluid Minerals (Oil and Gas) ........................................................................... 207

Map 2-4. Worland Locatable Minerals .......................................................................................... 207

Map 2-5. Worland Salable Minerals (Mineral Materials) .............................................................. 207

Map 2-6. Worland Wind Energy .................................................................................................... 207

Map 2-7. Worland Designated Utility Corridors ............................................................................ 207

Map 2-8. Worland Rights-of-Way .................................................................................................. 207

Map 2-9. Worland Land Tenure .........................................................................................................207

Map 2-10. Worland Trails & Travel Management (OHV) ............................................................. 207

Map 1-4. Surface Ownership within the WorlandField Office ...................................................... 208

Map 1-5. Mineral Ownership within the WorlandField Office ..................................................... 208

Map 3-1. Physical Resources – Water – Worland Field Office ...................................................... 208

Map 3-2. Mineral Resources – Locatable – Bentonite-Bearing Strata ........................................... 208

Map 3-3. Mineral Resources – Locatable – Gypsum-Bearing Strata ............................................. 208

Map 3-4. Mineral Resources – Locatable ...................................................................................... 208

Map 3-5. Mineral Resources – Leasable – Coal-Bearing Strata .................................................... 208

Map 3-6. Mineral Resources – Leasable – Geothermal ................................................................. 208

Map 3-7. Mineral Resources – Leasable – Existing Oil and Gas Leases ....................................... 208

Map 3-8. Mineral Resources – Leasable – Oil and Gas ................................................................. 208

Map 3-9. Mineral Resources – Leasable – Oil and GasManagement Areas ................................. 208

Map 3-10. Mineral Resources – Leasable – Producing Oil and Gas Fields ................................... 208

Map 3-11. Mineral Resources – Salable – MineralMaterials Sites ............................................... 208

Map 3-12. Mineral Resources – Salable ........................................................................................ 208

Map 3-13. Mineral Resources – Master Leasing Plan ................................................................... 208

Map 3-14. Biological Resources – Wildlife Management Areas ................................................... 208

Map 3-15. Biological Resources – Vegetation..................................................................................208

Map 3-16. Biological Resources – Fish and Wildlife Resources ................................................... 208

Map 3-17. Biological Resources – Special Status Species – Wildlife ........................................... 208

Map 3-18. Biological Resources – Wild Horses ............................................................................ 209

Map 3-19. Heritage and Visual Resources – Paleontological Resources ....................................... 209

Map 3-20. Heritage and Visual Resources – Visual Resource Management ................................. 209

Map 3-21. Land Resources – Lands and Realty Retention, Disposal, and Acquisition ................. 209

Map 3-22. Land Resources – Renewable Energy Potential ........................................................... 209

Map 3-23. Land Resources – Renewable Energy .......................................................................... 209

Map 3-24. Land Resources – Rights-of-Way and Corridors .......................................................... 209

Map 3-25. Physical Resources – Soil Slope and Erosion Hazard .................................................. 209

Map 3-26. Land Resources – Travel Management Designations ................................................... 209

Map 3-27. Land Resources – Recreation ....................................................................................... 209

Map 3-28. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing – Allotment Categories ..................................... 209

Map 3-29. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing – Closures ......................................................... 209

Map 3-30. Special Designations – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and other

Management Areas ............................................................................................................. 209
xii Worland Approved RMP

List of Maps September 2015

Map 3-31. Special Designations – Wilderness Study Areas .......................................................... 209

Map 3-32. Special Designations – Historic Trails ......................................................................... 209

Map 3-33. Socioeconomic Resources – Health and Safety ........................................................... 209
Worland Approved RMP xiii

September 2015 List of Tables

List of Tables

Table 2.1. Acres of Priority Habitat Management Areas and General Habitat Management

Areas in the Decision Area for the Approved Resource Management Plan ......................... 12

Table 2.2. Acres of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat by County in the Decision Area

(BLM-Administered Lands Only) ........................................................................................ 12

Table 2.3. Acres of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas by BLM District/Field

Office in the Decision Area .................................................................................................. 12

Table 2.4. Threats to Greater Sage-Grouse in the Worland Planning Area as identified by the

Conservation Objectives Team.....................................................................................................15

Table 2.5. Key Components of the Worland Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Addressing Conservation Objectives Team Report Threats ................... 16

Table 2.6. Summary of Allocation Decisions by Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management

Areas..................................................................................................................................... 19

Table 2.7. Greater Sage-Grouse Seasonal Habitat Objectives .......................................................... 22

Table 2.8. Worland Approved RMP Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions Pertaining

to Greater Sage-Grouse or Sagebrush Habitat ...................................................................... 29

Table 3.1. 0000 COMMON TO ALL............................................................................................... 49

Table 3.2. 1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – Air Quality ...................................................... 50

Table 3.3. 1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – Soil ................................................................. 52

Table 3.4. 1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – Water....................................................................54

Table 3.5. 1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – Cave and Karst Resources .............................. 57

Table 3.6. 2000 MINERAL RESOURCES (MR) ............................................................................ 58

Table 3.7. 3000 FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT (FM) ......................................................... 67

Table 3.8. 4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Forest

Products ................................................................................................................................ 70

Table 3.9. 4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland

Communities ........................................................................................................................ 72

Table 3.10. 4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Vegetation – Riparian/Wetland

Resources ............................................................................................................................. 74

Table 3.11. 4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Invasive Species and Pest Management 76

Table 3.12. 4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Fish and Wildlife Resources ................... 78

Table 3.13. 4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Special Status Species ............................. 82

Table 3.14. 4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Wild Horses ............................................. 93

Table 3.15. 5000 HERITAGE AND VISUAL RESOURCES (HR) – Cultural Resources.............. 95

Table 3.16. 5000 HERITAGE AND VISUAL RESOURCES (HR) – Paleontological Resources 98

Table 3.17. 5000 HERITAGE AND VISUAL RESOURCES (HR) – Visual Resource

Management ....................................................................................................................... 101

Table 3.18. 6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Lands and Realty ................................................ 103

Table 3.19. 6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Renewable Energy .............................................. 106

Table 3.20. 6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Rights-of-Way and Corridors ............................. 107

Table 3.21. 6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Comprehensive Travel and Transportation

Management ....................................................................................................................... 110

Table 3.22. 6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Recreation ........................................................... 114

Table 3.23. 6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Lands with Wilderness Characteristics ............... 125

Table 3.24. 6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Livestock Grazing Management ......................... 126

Table 3.25. 7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern (ACECs) .............................................................................................................. 129

Table 3.26. 7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – National Back Country Byways ............... 132

Table 3.27. 7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – Historic Trails .......................................... 133
xiv Worland Approved RMP

List of Tables September 2015

Table 3.28. 7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – Wild and Scenic Rivers ............................ 134

Table 3.29. 7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – Wilderness Study Areas ........................... 135

Table 3.30. 8000 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES (SR) – Social and Economic .................... 136

Table 3.31. 8000 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES (SR) – Health and Safety .......................... 138

Table B.1. Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations — Worland Field Office Planning Area ...................... 216

Table D.1. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area ....................... 272

Table D.2. Implementation of RMP Decisions to Address COT Threats ...................................... 275

Table D.3. Indicators for Monitoring Implementation of the Strategy, Decisions, Greater

Sage-Grouse Habitat, and Greater Sage- Grouse Populations at the Broad and

Mid-scales .......................................................................................................................... 297

Table D.4. Relationship between the 18 Threats and the 3 Habitat Disturbance Measures for

Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 299

Table D.5. Datasets for Establishing and Monitoring Changes in Sagebrush Availability ............ 302

Table D.6. Ecological Systems in BpS and EVT Capable of Supporting Sagebrush Vegetation

and Could Provide Suitable Seasonal Habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse ............................ 303

Table D.7. Ecological Systems with Conifers Most Likely to Encroach into Sagebrush

Vegetation................................................................................................................................307

Table D.8. Geospatial Data Sources for Habitat Degradation (Measure 2) .................................... 314

Table D.9. User and Producer Accuracies for Aggregated Ecological Systems within

LANDFIRE Map Zones ..................................................................................................... 329

Table E.1. Federal Laws and Statutes............................................................................................. 335

Table E.2. Bureau of Land Management Regulations and Policies ............................................... 338

Table E.3. Applicable Wyoming State Laws and Regulations ....................................................... 343

Table E.4. Memoranda and Agreements ........................................................................................ 344

Table H.1. Resource Monitoring Table..................................................................................................367

Table I.1. Land Tenure Descriptions .............................................................................................. 379

Table I.2. Properties Identified for Disposal in the Planning Area ................................................. 380

Table J.1. Recreation Management Area Prescriptions .................................................................. 392

Table M.1. Applicable National and State Primary Air Quality Standards for Criteria

Pollutants and Baseline Representative Concentrations for the Planning Area ................. 548

Table M.2. Total Annual Emissions Summary for BLM Activities within the Bighorn Basin

Planning Area ..................................................................................................................... 550

Table M.3. Percent Change in Emissions Compared to Base Year 2008 ....................................... 550

Table M.4. Sample Emission Reduction Strategies for Oil and Gas Development ........................ 556

Table N.1. Seasonal Restrictions and Spatial Buffers .................................................................... 561

Table O.1. Current Livestock Grazing Allotment Information ...................................................... 563

Table O.2. Standards and Guidelines Summary of Grazing Allotments ........................................ 573

Table O.3. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments or Portions of Allotments in Greater

Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Management Areas .............................................................. 577

Table P.1. Management Actions and Decisions Crosswalk ............................................................ 583

Table P.2. Maps Crosswalk ............................................................................................................ 602

Table P.3. Appendices Crosswalk .................................................................................................. 606
xv

State Director Recommendationfor Approval

I hereby recommend for approval the Worland Field Office Resomce Management Plan's 

management goals , objectives and decisions.

Date
This page intentionally 

left blank
xvii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

$: 

U.S. dollars 

<: 

less than or equal to 

>: 

greater than or equal to

μg/m3: 

Micrograms per cubic meter

ACEC:

Area of Critical Environmental Concern

ACHP:

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

AFMSS:

Automated Fluid Minerals Support System 

AML:

Abandoned mine lands 

AMP:

Allotment management plan

AMS:

Analysis of the Management Situation

AMWG:

Adaptive Management Working Group 

APD:

Application for Permit to Drill

APHIS:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

APLIC:

Avian Powerline Interaction Committee

APWG:

Activity Plan Working Group 

AUM:

Animal Unit Month

BACT:

Best Available Control Technology 
xviii

BHBLWG:

Big Horn Basin Sage-grouse Local Working Group

BIA:

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BLM:

Bureau of Land Management 

BMP:

Best management practice

BOR:

Bureau of Reclamation

BpS:

Biophysical Setting

BR:

Biological Resources 

C&MU:

Classification and Multiple Use

CBNG:

Coalbed Natural Gas

CDL:

Cropland Data Layer 

CERCLA:

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CFR:

Code of Federal Regulations

CH4: 

Methane

CO:

Carbon monoxide 

CO2: 

Carbon Dioxide 

COA:

Condition of Approval 

COT:

Conservation Objectives Team

CSU:

Controlled Surface Use 
xix

dBA:

Decibels with an A-weighted scale

DDCT:

Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool 

DEQ:

Department of Environmental Quality 

DLE :

Desert Land Entry

DOE:

United States Department of Energy

DOI:

United States Department of the Interior

DPC:

Desired Plant Community

EIS:

Environmental Impact Statement

EO:

Executive Order

EPA:

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

ERMA:

Extensive Recreation Management Area

ESA:

Endangered Species Act

ESD:

Ecological Site Description

FLPMA:

Federal Land Policy and Management Act

FM:

Fire and Fuels Management

FMP:

Fire Management Plan

FR:

Federal Register

FRCC :

Fire Regime Condition Class
xx

GHG:

Greenhouse Gas

GHMA:

General Habitat Management Area

GIS:

Geographic Information System 

GRSG:

Greater Sage-Grouse 

H2S:

Hydrogen Sulfide 

HA:

Herd Area

HAF:

Habitat Assessment Framework

HAP:

Hazardous Air Pollutant 

HMA:

Herd Management Area

HMG:

Habitat Management Guidelines

HMP:

Habitat Management Plan

HU:

Hydrologic Unit Code 

IM:

Instruction Memorandum 

IMP:

Interim Management Policy

INPS:

Invasive, Nonnative, Plant Species 

kV:

Kilovolt 

LMF:

Landscape Monitoring Framework 

LMP:

Land Management Plan
xxi

LR:

Land Resources 

LRP:

Land Reclamation Potential

LUP:

Land Use Plan

LWCF:

Land and Water Conservation Fund 

MLP:

Master Leasing Plan

MOU:

Memorandum of Understanding 

MR:

Mineral Resources

MTBS:

Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity 

N2O:

Nitrous Oxide 

NAAQS:

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

NASS:

National Agricultural Statistics Service

NEPA:

National Environmental Policy Act

NH3: 

Ammonia

NHPA:

National Historic Preservation Act

NHT:

National Historic Trail

NIFC:

National Interagency Fire Center

NLCD:

National Land Cover Dataset

NOC:

National Operations Center
xxii

NOS:

Notice of Staking 

NOX: 

Nitrogen Oxide

NPS:

National Park Service

NRCS:

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NREL:

Natural Renewable Energy Laboratory

NRHP:

National Register of Historic Places

NSO:

No Surface Occupancy 

NTT:

National Technical Team

NWSRS:

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System

O3:

Ozone 

OHV:

Off-highway vehicle 

OTF:

Ozone Technical Forum 

PAC:

Priority Area for Conservation 

PARC:

Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation 

PEIS:

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

PETM:

Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum

PFC:

Proper Functioning Condition 

PFYC:

Potential Fossil Yield Classification
xxiii

PHMA:

Priority Habitat Management Area

PM:

Particulate Matter

PM10: 

Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

PM2.5: 

Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

PNC:

Potential Natural Community

ppb:

Parts per billion

ppm:

Parts per million

PR:

Physical Resources

PSD:

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

R&PP:

Recreation and Public Purposes Act 

RAATS:

Reduced Agent-Area Treatments

RAMP:

Recreation Area Management Plan

RDF:

Required Design Feature

RMA:

Recreation Management Area

RMP:

Resource Management Plan

RMZ:

Recreation Management Zone

ROD:

Record of Decision

ROW:

Rights-of-Way
xxiv

RSC:

Recreation Setting Characteristic

SCR:

Selective Catalytic Reduction

SCZ:

Setting Consideration Zone 

SD:

Special Designations

SGI:

Sage-Grouse Initiative

SGIT:

Sage-Grouse Implementation Team 

SHPO:

State Historic Preservation Office

SLAMS:

State and Local Air Monitoring Site

SMA:

Special Management Area

SOX: 

Sulfur oxide 

SR:

Socioeconomic Resources 

SRMA:

Special Recreation Management Area

SRP:

Special Recreation Permit

SUA:

Surface Use Agreement

SVR:

Standard Visual Range

TL:

Timing Limitation

TLS:

Timing Limitation Stipulation

TMDL:

Total Maximum Daily Load
xxv

TMP :

Travel Management Plan

TPY:

Tons per year 

U.S.: 

United States

U.S.C.: 

United States Code 

USFS:

United States Forest Service

USFWS:

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS:

United States Geological Survey

VOC:

Volatile Organic Compound 

VRI:

Visual Resource Inventory 

VRM:

Visual Resource Management

WAAQS:

Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standard

WAFWA:

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

WARMS:

Wyoming Air Resource Monitoring System

WDEQ:

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

WGFD:

Wyoming Game and Fish Department

WHMA:

Wildlife Habitat Management Area

WNv: 

West Nile Virus

WO: 

Washington Office 
xxvi

WQD:

Water Quality Division

WRAP:

Western Regional Air Partnership

WSA:

Wilderness Study Area 

WSR:

Wild and Scenic River

WUI:

Wildland Urban Interface 

WY:

Wyoming
Chapter 1. Introduction 
This page intentionally 

left blank
Worland Approved RMP 1

Introduction

The Record of Decision (ROD) and Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) are intended 

to provide land use planning and management direction at a broad scale and to guide future 

actions for the life of the plan. The regulations for making and modifying land use plan decisions, 

which comprise an RMP, are found in 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1600. Land 

use plan decisions consist of (1) desired outcomes (goals and objectives) and (2) allowable uses 

and management actions.

This ROD and Approved RMP were prepared by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Worland Field Office and provide overall management direction for resources on BLMadministered land in the Worland Field Office, Wyoming. The Approved RMP is the 

result of a multi-year planning effort (the Bighorn Basin RMP Revision Project) to revise the 

1988 Washakie, 1998 Grass Creek, and 1990 Cody RMPs by the BLM Washington Office, 

Wyoming State Office, Wind River/Bighorn Basin District, Worland Field Office, Cody Field 

Office, cooperating agencies, special interest and user groups, and concerned citizens. The 

ROD and Approved RMP contain decisions from the Bighorn Basin Proposed RMP and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that pertain to the Worland Field Office. The decisions 

outlined in this ROD and Approved RMP documents will enable the BLM to manage the lands 

within the Worland Field Office’s administrative boundaries to achieve the desired future 

conditions and management objectives in partnership with communities and citizens. 

The ROD documents the approval of the RMP, describes the modifications and clarifications 

made to the Proposed RMP after release of the Final EIS, presents an overview of the alternatives 

considered in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS, provides rationale for the decisions, identifies 

mitigation and monitoring requirements, and describes the public involvement process, including 

consultation and coordination conducted during the planning process. The Approved RMP 

presents the purpose and need for revision of the 1988 Washakie RMP and the 1998 Grass 

Creek RMP, planning issues considered and addressed, an overall vision for the planning 

area, management decisions, and how the Approved RMP will be implemented. The ROD 

and Approved RMP are supported by appendices, a Glossary (p. 161), maps (Appendix A,

Maps (p. 207)), and references. Some of the management action numbers, appendix letters, 

and map numbers have changed between the Proposed RMP and Final EIS and the ROD and 

Approved RMP. Appendix P, Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

Crosswalk Tables (p. 583) provides crosswalk tables identifying the changes in numbers or 

lettering between the two documents.

1.1. Description of the Planning Area

The Worland planning area comprises approximately 3,380,244 acres of land in north-central 

Wyoming, including portions of Big Horn, Park, and Hot Springs counties, and all of Washakie 

County. Within the Worland planning area (Figure 1.1, “Worland Field Office Resource

Management Plan Planning Area” (p. 3)), the BLM manages approximately 2.1 million acres of 

public land surface and 2.7 million acres of mineral estate. Maps 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3 show surface 

management and sub-surface estate as well as Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas 

in the planning and decision areas. 

As a note to the reader, acreages provided in this document are approximations based on 

calculations performed using Geographic Information System (GIS) data and software. Precise 

September 2015

Chapter 1 Introduction

Introduction
2 Worland Approved RMP

acreages would require physical surveys, which are conducted only when necessary to support 

site-specific decisions. Over time and with the expanded use of the highly accurate Global 

Positioning System, the BLM updates its data to improve its precision. The GIS-generated 

calculations in this document are sufficient for use to support this land use planning effort. 

Chapter 1 Introduction

Description of the Planning Area September 2015
Worland Approved RMP

3

September 2015

Chapter 1 Introduction 

Description of the Planning AreaFigure 1.1. Worland Field Office Resource Management Plan Planning Area
4 Worland Approved RMP

1.2. Purpose and Need

1.2.1. Purpose

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.13) require the purpose and 

need of an EIS to “specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in 

proposing the alternatives including the proposed action.” The Draft and Final EISs included a 

detailed explanation of the purpose and need for revision of the 1988 Washakie RMP and 1998 

Grass Creek RMP, which is summarized below. 

The BLM began a new planning process to allow consideration of changes that occurred since 

RODs were signed for the Washakie and Grass Creek RMPs, including new data, changes in 

policy, and emerging public expectations and concerns. The BLM confirmed the need to revise 

the existing plan based on considerations identified in the Analysis of the Management Situation 

(AMS) (BLM 2008), an examination of issues raised during the public scoping process, and 

through collaboration with cooperating local, state, and federal agencies. 

1.2.2. Need for Revising the Existing Plan

New Data

Monitoring, availability of new information, and advances in science and technology provided 

new data to consider in the Bighorn Basin RMP Revision Project. The following documents and 

sources provided new data: 

● Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands (BLM and U.S. Department of 

Energy 2003); 

● Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan Revision Project Summary of the Analysis of the 

Management Situation (BLM 2009a); 

● BLM Wyoming Statewide Biological Assessments for Species Regulated by the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) (published between 2003 and 2005); 

● Cultural Class I Regional Overview (BLM 2009b); 

● Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000 Scientific Inventory of Onshore Federal Lands 

Oil and Gas Resources and Reserves and the Extent and Nature of Restrictions or Impediments 

to their Development (U.S. Department of the Interior [DOI] 2006); 

● Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Geothermal Leasing in the Western 

United States (BLM and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 2008); 

● Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on 

BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States (BLM 2005a); 

● Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Inventory – 2011 Update (BLM 2011a); 

● National Assessment of Oil and Gas Fact Sheet – Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas 

Resources of the Bighorn Basin Province, Wyoming and Montana, 2008 (U.S. Geological 

Survey [USGS] 2008); 

● Oil Shale and Tar Sands Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2009c); 

● Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas (BLM 2014); 

● Solid Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report for the Bighorn Basin Resource 

Management Plan Revision Project (BLM 2009d); 

● Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2007a); and 

Chapter 1 Introduction

Purpose and Need September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 5

● Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan (Wyoming Sage-grouse Working Group 

2003), Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Conservation Assessment 

of Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats (Connelly et al. 2004), and Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Plan for the Big Horn Basin, Wyoming (Big Horn Basin Sage–grouse Local 

Working Group 2007), A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures 

(Sage-Grouse National Technical Team [NTT] 2011), Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Objectives Team (COT) Final Report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2013), 

Sage-Grouse Baseline Environmental Report (Manier et al. 2013). 

New and Revised Policies

Numerous policies were either revised or developed since the RODs for the existing plans. 

Appendix E, Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Guidance (p. 335) identifies relevant policies, 

including new and revised policies, and their effective dates. 

Emerging Concerns and Changing Circumstances

Emerging issues and changes in local, regional, and national circumstances considered when 

revising the existing plans included the following: 

● Increasing and conflicting demands on planning area resources.

● Increasing complexity of resource management issues.

● Changes in the legal status of plants and wildlife occurring or potentially occurring in the 

planning area.

● Increasing conflicts between resource uses and protection of specific wildlife and wildlife 

habitat.

● Changes in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat management.

● Maintaining public access to public lands. 

● The spread of invasive plant and animal species on public lands. 

● Changing demand for energy and minerals development. 

● Changes in oil and gas leasing and the development of Master Leasing Plan analysis 

(Instruction Memorandum [IM] 2010-117). 

● Management of riparian areas and water quality concerns. 

● Fire and fuels management practices.

● Changes in livestock grazing practices and rangeland conditions. 

● Changes in recreation and visitor use levels and locations. 

● Management and protection of recently discovered cultural and paleontological resources.

● Addressing travel management, including increases in off-highway vehicle (OHV) use.

● The appropriateness of certain withdrawals, tenure adjustments, realty leases, and utility 

corridor rights-of-way.

● Increased interest in renewable energy development across the Nation. 

● Updated inventories of lands with wilderness characteristics in the planning area.

● Identifying unique or sensitive areas that meet the criteria for special designation. 

● Increasing air quality issues affecting human health and regulatory compliance.

● Cumulative increase in surface disturbance.

● Interest in the management of wild horses and herd levels.

● Increased interest in wind-energy proposals. 

● Changes to visual resource classifications.

● Changes in resource- and resource-condition monitoring tasks and the entities performing 

the monitoring. 

September 2015

Chapter 1 Introduction 

Need for Revising the Existing Plan
6 Worland Approved RMP

● The need to determine the suitability of the eligible waterway corridors within the Bighorn 

Basin for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS).

Greater Sage-Grouse Management 

In March 2010, the USFWS published its listing decision for the Greater Sage-Grouse as 

“Warranted but Precluded” (USFWS 2010). The listing decision identified the inadequacy 

of existing regulatory mechanisms as a significant threat to Greater Sage-Grouse now and for 

the foreseeable future. Further, the USFWS identified conservation measures in RMPs as the 

principal regulatory mechanism for the BLM. Based on the identified threats to the Greater

Sage-Grouse and the USFWS timeline for making a listing decision on this species, the BLM 

announced a National Greater Sage-grouse Planning Strategy Charter in August 2011 requiring 

the development of new or revised regulatory mechanisms, through RMPs, to conserve and 

restore the Greater Sage-Grouse and habitat on BLM-administered lands on a range-wide basis 

over the long term (Sage-Grouse NTT 2011). 

On November 21, 2014, the USGS published Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates for Greater 

Sage-Grouse - A Review (Manier et al. 2014). The USGS review provided a compilation and 

summary of published scientific studies evaluating the influence of anthropogenic activities and 

infrastructure on Greater Sage-Grouse populations. The BLM has reviewed this information 

and examined how lek buffer-distances were addressed through land use allocations and other 

management actions for the Worland Field Office proposed in the Bighorn Basin RMP and EIS. 

The State of Wyoming’s Core Area Strategy is designed to protect birds and habitat within core 

population areas by using a suite of tools and mechanisms that work in concert to conserve 

Greater Sage-Grouse by reducing habitat loss and fragmentation through lek buffer, disturbance 

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

of disturbance. The USFWS has informed the BLM that the combined effect of these overlapping 

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

Area Strategy will be protective of breeding Greater Sage-Grouse. 

1.3. Planning Criteria

The planning criteria used in this ROD and Approved RMP are identified in the Bighorn Basin 

Proposed RMP and Final EIS. A summary of these criteria follows below: 

1. The revised RMPs will recognize valid existing rights.

2. Decisions in the revised RMPs will comply with all applicable laws and regulations. 

Decisions will comply, as appropriate, with policy and guidance. 

3. Impacts from the management alternatives considered in the revised RMPs will beanalyzed 

in an EIS developed in accordance with regulations at 43 CFR 1610 and 40 CFR 1500. 

4. The planning process will follow the stages of an EIS-level planning process − conduct 

scoping, develop an Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) report, formulate 

alternatives, analyze the alternatives’ potential effects, select an agency preferred alternative, 

publish a Draft RMP and EIS, provide a 90-day public comment period for the draft, prepare 

and publish a Proposed RMP and Final EIS, provide a 30-day public protest period, and 

prepare a ROD. For specific information, see the Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1601-1. 

5. Lands covered in the revised RMPs will be public land and split-estate the BLM administers. 

The BLM will make no decisions about lands or minerals that are not BLM-administered.

6. BLM decisions will not apply to private land with private mineral estate.

Chapter 1 Introduction

Planning Criteria September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 7

7. The impact analysis will include all lands that could affect or be affected by BLM 

management of public lands in the planning area.

8. For program-specific guidance regarding land use planning-level decisions, the process will 

follow the Land Use Planning Manual 1601 and Handbook H-1601-1, Appendix C.

9. The Bighorn Basin RMP Revision Project planning effort will be collaborative and 

multi-jurisdictional. The BLM will strive to ensure that its management decisions 

complement its planning jurisdictions and adjoining properties within the boundaries 

prescribed by law and regulation. 

10. Broad-based public participation will be an integral part of the RMP revision and EIS process.

11. Decisions in the RMP will strive to be compatible with existing plans and policies of adjacent

local, state, federal, and tribal agencies as long as the decisions are consistent with the 

purposes, policies, and programs of federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands. 

12. The planning team will work cooperatively and collaboratively with cooperating agencies 

and all other interested groups, agencies, and individuals. 

13. The BLM and cooperating agencies will jointly develop alternatives for resolution of 

resource management issues and management concerns.

14. The planning process will use the Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines to develop 

management options and alternatives and analyze their impacts, and as part of the planning 

criteria for developing the options and alternatives and for determining mitigation 

requirements.

15. Planning and management direction will focus on the relative values of resources, not on the 

combination of uses that would give the greatest economic return or economic output. 

16. All proposed management actions will be based on current scientific information, research 

and technology, and existing inventory and monitoring information.

17. Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for 

the Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the State of Wyoming 

will apply to all activities and uses.

18. The BLM will provide for public safety and welfare related to fire, hazardous materials, 

and abandoned mine lands.

19. The BLM will analyze and modify visual resource management class designations to reflect 

present conditions and future needs.

20. The BLM will consider current and potential future uses of public lands through the 

development of reasonably foreseeable future development and activity scenarios based on 

technical analysis of historical, existing, and projected levels of use.

21. The BLM will develop reasonable foreseeable action scenarios for all land and resource uses 

(including minerals) and portray them based on historical, existing, and projected levels for 

all programs. The BLM will consider existing endangered species recovery plans, including 

plans for reintroduction of endangered and other species.

22. The planning process will involve Native American tribal governments and will provide 

strategies for the protection of recognized traditional uses.

23. Planning decisions will comply with the ESA and BLM interagency agreements with the 

USFWS.

24. The BLM will continue implementing the National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation 

Strategy that requires impacts to sagebrush habitat and sagebrush-dependent wildlife species 

be analyzed and considered in BLM land use planning efforts for public lands with sagebrush 

habitat in the planning area.

25. The BLM applied the relevance and importance criteria for Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACEC) designation (BLM 1988) to BLM-administered public lands in the planning 

area to identify areas that have the potential for ACEC designation. An ACEC designation 

Chapter 1 Introduction

September 2015 Planning Criteria
8 Worland Approved RMP

alone does not change the allowed uses of public lands involved (Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act Section 201(a) and 43 CFR 1601.0-5a). In addition, protective measures 

for ACECs are not applied or required simply because of the designation. Any protective 

measures applied to ACECs are based on what is necessary to protect the relevance and 

importance criteria for which the ACEC was designated. The only automatic requirement 

associated with an ACEC designation is that a plan of operations must be submitted for any 

mining claim development in the area (43 CFR 3809.11(c)(3)). 

26. During the preparation of the AMS for the planning area, the BLM evaluated free-flowing 

streams using the criteria established by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 to determine 

their eligibility and suitability for inclusion in the NWSRS. The BLM developed interim 

management prescriptions for stream segments passing through public lands deemed

Wild and Scenic River eligible. To provide a clear basis for comparisons, the No Action 

Alternative will not consider or include any of the stream segments evaluated in association 

with preparing the AMS for the RMP revisions. 

27. OHV use management decisions in the revised RMPs will be consistent with the BLM 2001 

National OHV Strategy, BLM Manual 1626 (BLM 2011b), BLM Handbook H-8342-1, 43 

CFR 8340, and IM 2008-014. OHV area designations will be “limited” unless otherwise 

classified as “open” or “closed” to meet land use plan objectives.

28. The BLM will continue to manage Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) under BLM Manual 

6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas (BLM 2012a) until Congress either 

designates all or portions of the WSA as wilderness or releases the lands from further 

wilderness consideration. It is no longer BLM policy to designate additional WSAs through 

the RMP process, or to manage any lands other than existing WSAs in accordance with the 

non-impairment standard prescribed in BLM Manual 6330. 

29. Forest management strategies will be consistent with the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.

30. Fire management strategies will be consistent with the Guidance for Implementation of the 

Federal Wildland Fire Policy (USFS et al. 2009). 

31. Geographic Information Systems and metadata information will meet Federal Geographic 

Data Committee standards, as required by Executive Order 12906 Coordinating Geographic 

Data Access, as amended. The BLM will comply with all other applicable BLM data 

standards. 

32. In accordance with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, this RMP 

will provide for monitoring and evaluation of RMP decisions over time. To 

the extent that Adaptive Management, as defined by DOI or BLM guidance

(https://www.doi.gov/ppa/Adaptive-Management), applies, the BLM will apply and assess 

Adaptive Management in activity-level and project-level plans. This RMP is not a standalone 

Adaptive Management project. 

33. The BLM will use the COT Report (USFWS 2013), the WAFWA Conservation Assessment 

of Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats (Connelly et al. 2004), and any other 

appropriate resources, to identify Greater Sage-Grouse habitat requirements and best 

management practices.

34. Consider the likelihood of development of not-yet-constructed surface-disturbing 

activities—as defined in Table D.4, “Relationship between the 18 Threats and the 3

Habitat Disturbance Measures for Monitoring” (p. 299) of the Monitoring Framework in

Appendix D, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Strategy (p. 271)—under valid 

existing rights.

Chapter 1 Introduction

September 2015
Chapter 2. Approved Resource Management 

Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat
This page intentionally 

left blank
Worland Approved RMP 11

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Plan

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Description of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 Management Areas

2.1. Description of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management 

Areas

The decision area for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat management within this Approved Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) is Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered land in Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat management areas, including surface and split-estate lands with BLM 

subsurface mineral rights. Greater Sage-Grouse habitat on BLM-administered lands in the 

decision area consists of lands allocated as Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA)

and General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA) (see Table 2.1, “Acres of Priority Habitat

Management Areas and General Habitat Management Areas in the Decision Area for the

Approved Resource Management Plan” (p. 12), Table 2.2, “Acres of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

by County in the Decision Area (BLM-Administered Lands Only)” (p. 12), Table 2.3, “Acres of

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas by BLM District/Field Office in the Decision

Area” (p. 12), and Figure 2.1, “Worland Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management

Areas for BLM-Administered Lands” (p. 13)).

PHMA and GHMA are defined as follows:

● PHMA: BLM-administered lands identified as having the highest value to maintaining 

sustainable Greater Sage-Grouse populations. The boundaries and management strategies for 

PHMA are derived from and generally follow the Preliminary Priority Habitat boundaries 

identified in the Bighorn Basin Proposed RMP and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS). Areas of PHMA largely coincide with areas identified as Priority Areas for Conservation 

(PACs) in the Conservation Objectives Team (COT) report. These areas are consistent with 

Core Habitat Areas, per version 3 of the State of Wyoming Executive Order (EO) Greater 

Sage-grouse Core Area of Protection (EO 2011-5) (Wyoming Office of the Governor 2011). 

● GHMA: BLM-administered lands where some special management would apply to sustain 

Greater Sage-Grouse populations. The boundaries and management strategies for GHMA are 

derived from and generally follow the Preliminary General Habitat boundaries identified in the 

Bighorn Basin Draft Proposed RMP and Final EIS. These areas are consistent with Non-Core 

Habitat Areas, per version 3 of the State of Wyoming EO Greater Sage-grouse Core Area of 

Protection (EO 2011-5) (Wyoming Office of the Governor 2011). 

There are no Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs) in the Worland Field Office. SFAs are a subset of 

PHMAs. The SFAs were derived from Greater Sage-Grouse stronghold areas described in a U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) memorandum to the BLM titled, Greater Sage-Grouse: 

Additional Recommendations to Refine Land Use Allocations in Highly Important Landscapes 

(USFWS 2014). The memorandum and associated maps provided by the USFWS identify 

areas that represent recognized strongholds for Greater Sage-Grouse that have been noted and 

referenced as having the highest densities of Greater Sage-Grouse and other criteria important 

for the persistence of the species.
12 Worland Approved RMP

Table 2.1. Acres of Priority Habitat Management Areas and General Habitat Management 

Areas in the Decision Area for the Approved Resource Management Plan

Surface Land Management Priority Habitat Management 

Areas

General Habitat Management 

Areas

BLM-Administered Surface Estate 799,391 1,290,562

BLM-Administered Mineral Estate 1,021,583 1,632,171

Source: BLM 2013a

BLM Bureau of Land Management

Table 2.2. Acres of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat by County in the Decision Area 

(BLM-Administered Lands Only)

County

Priority Habitat Management Areas General Habitat Management Areas

BLM Surface 

Estate

BLM Mineral 

Estate

BLM Surface 

Estate

BLM Mineral 

Estate

Big Horn 106,723 119,082 487,427 523,301

Hot Springs 208,222 317,359 286,110 414,482

Park 72,218 99,583 27,560 74,636

Washakie 412,226 485,556 489,454 619,731

Grand Total1 799,391 1,021,583 1,290,562 1,632,171

Source: BLM 2013a

1Inaccurate boundary locations and distortions with map projections inherent to the GIS data result in totals not 

equal to the sum of constituent parts.

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

GIS Geographic Information System

Table 2.3. Acres of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas by BLM District/Field 

Office in the Decision Area

BLM Office Priority Habitat 

Management Areas

General Habitat 

Management Areas

Total

Cody Field Office 317,307 740,797 1,058,104

Lander Field Office 1,675,759 696,186 2,371,945

Worland Field Office 799,391 1,290,562 2,089,953

Total Acres (Wind 

River/Bighorn Basin 

District Office Total)

2,792,457 2,727,545 5,520,002

Source: BLM 2013a

BLM Bureau of Land Management

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Plan for 

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Description of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Areas September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 13

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Plan

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Description of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

September 2015 Management Areas

Figure 2.1. Worland Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas for BLM-Administered Lands
14 Worland Approved RMP

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Planfor 

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Worland Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Summary September 2015

2.2. Worland Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Summary

The Approved RMP identifies and incorporates conservation measures to protect, restore, and 

enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitat by avoiding, minimizing, and compensating for unavoidable 

impacts of threats to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. The Approved RMP addresses threats to 

Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat identified by the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision, 

as well as those threats described in the USFWS COT Report. Per the COT Report, the USFWS 

identified threats by Greater Sage-Grouse population across the range and stated whether that 

threat is present and widespread, present but localized, or unknown for that specific population. 

The Worland Field Office falls with Management Zones I and II as identified by the COT Report.

Table 2.4, “Threats to Greater Sage-Grouse in the Worland Planning Area as identified by the

Conservation Objectives Team” (p. 15) identifies the Greater Sage-Grouse populations and threats 

identified by the COT Report contained within the Worland planning area. 
Table 2.4. Threats to Greater Sage-Grouse in the Worland Planning Area as identified by the Conservation Objectives Team

Threats are characterized as: Y = threat is present and widespread and L = threat present but localized.

GRSG

Identified Populations 

from the 

COT Report Applicable 

to the 

Worland 

Planning 

Area

Unit 

Number

Isolated 

Small 

Size

Sagebrush 

Elimination

Agriculture 

Conversion

Fire Conifers

Weeds/ 

Annual 

Grasses

Energy Mining

Infrastructure

Improper 

Livestock 

Grazing

FreeRoaming 

Equids

RecreationUrbanization

Powder 

River 

Basin 

(WY)

3 N L N L L Y Y Y Y Y N Y L

Wyoming Basin 

(WY Portion)

9a N L N L L L Y L Y Y L Y L

Source: USFWS 2013

COT Conservation Objectives Team 

GRSG Greater Sage-Grouse

L Threat present, but localized

N Threat is not known to be present 

U Unknown

WY Wyoming

Y Threat is present and widespread

Worland Approved RMP 15

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Plan

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Worland Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse

Conservation Summary September 2015
16 Worland Approved RMP

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Planfor 

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Worland Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Summary September 2015

Table 2.5, “Key Components of the Worland Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource

Management Plan Addressing Conservation Objectives Team Report Threats” (p. 16) provides 

a crosswalk as to how the Approved RMP for the Worland Sub-region addresses the threats 

from the COT Report. 

Table 2.5. Key Components of the Worland Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource 

Management Plan Addressing Conservation Objectives Team Report Threats

Threats to Greater Sage-Grouse and its Habitat 

(from COT Report)

Key Component of the Worland Approved 

Resource Management Plan

All threats ● Implement the Adaptive Management Plan, which

provides regulatory assurance that unintended 

negative impacts to GRSG habitat will be addressed 

before consequences become severe or irreversible.

● PHMA: Require and ensure mitigation that provides 

a net conservation gain to GRSG.

● Monitor implementation and effectiveness of 

conservation measures in GRSG habitats according to 

the Habitat Assessment Framework.

All development threats, including mining,infrastructure, 

and energy development

● PHMA: Implement an anthropogenic disturbance cap

of 5% at the project-area scale.

● PHMA: Implement a density cap of an average of 1 

energy and mining facility per 640 acres.

● PHMA: Surface occupancy and surface-disturbing 

activities are prohibited on or within a 0.6-mile radius 

of the perimeter of occupied GRSG leks.

● GHMA: Surface occupancy and surface-disturbing 

activities are prohibited on or within a 0.25-mile 

radius of the perimeter of occupied GRSG leks.

● Apply RDFs when authorizing actions in GRSG 

habitat.

● Inform infrastructure siting in GRSG habitat through 

best available science and monitoring to minimize 

indirect effects.

● Effects of infrastructure projects, including siting,will 

be minimized using the best available science, updated 

as monitoring information on current infrastructure 

projects becomes available.

Energy development—fluid minerals, including 

geothermal resources

● PHMA: Open to fluid mineral leasing subject toNSO

stipulation within 0.6 mile of an occupied lek, and TL

stipulation from March 15 to June 30.

● GHMA: Open to fluid mineral leasing subject to 

NSO within 0.25 mile of an occupied lek and TL 

stipulations.

● Prioritize the leasing and development of fluid mineral 

resources outside GRSG habitat.

Energy development—wind energy ● PHMA: Avoidance area (may be available for wind

energy development with special stipulations)

Infrastructure—major ROWs ● PHMA: Avoidance area (may be available for major

ROWs with special stipulations)

Infrastructure—minor ROWs ● PHMA: Avoidance area (may be available for minor

ROWs with special stipulations)

Mining—locatable minerals ● Apply RDFs to locatable minerals consistent with

applicable law.

Mining—Coal ● PHMA is essential habitat for GRSG for purposes of

the suitability criteria set forth at 43 CFR 3461.5(o)(I).
Worland Approved RMP 17

Threats to Greater Sage-Grouse and its Habitat 

(from COT Report)

Key Component of the Worland Approved 

Resource Management Plan

Improper livestock grazing ● Prioritize the review and processing of grazing

permits/leases in PHMA.

● The NEPA analysis for renewals and modifications 

of grazing permits/leases will include specific 

management thresholds, based on the GRSG Habitat 

Objectives Table, Land Health Standards, and 

ecological site potential, to allow adjustments to 

grazing that have already been subjected to NEPA 

analysis.

● Prioritize field checks in PHMA to ensure compliance 

with the terms and conditions of grazing permits.

Free-roaming equid management ● Update Herd Management Area plans to include

GRSG objectives.

Range management structures ● Allow range improvements which do not adversely

impact GRSG, or which provide a conservation benefit 

to GRSG such as fences for protecting important 

seasonal habitats.

Recreation ● PHMA: Do not construct new recreation facilities.

Fire ● PHMA: Prioritize suppression immediately after life

and property to conserve the habitat.

● GHMA: Prioritize suppression where wildfires 

threaten PHMA.

Nonnative, invasive plant species ● Improve GRSG habitat by treating invasive annual

grasses.

● Treat sites in PHMA and GHMA that contain invasive 

species infestations through an integrated pest 

management approach.

Sagebrush removal ● PHMA: Maintain all lands ecologically capable of

producing sagebrush (but no less than 70 percent) 

with a minimum of 15 percent sagebrush cover or as 

consistent with specific ecological site conditions.

● All BLM use authorizations will contain terms and 

conditions regarding the actions needed to meet or 

progress toward meeting the habitat objectives for 

GRSG.

Pinyon and/or juniper expansion ● Remove conifers encroaching into sagebrush habitats,

prioritizing occupied GRSG habitat.

Agricultural conversion and exurban development ● Retain the majority of PHMA in federal management.

BLM Bureau of Land Management NSO No surface occupancy

CFR Code of Federal Regulations PHMA Priority Habitat Management Area

COT Conservation Objectives Team RDFs Required Design Features 

GHMA General Habitat Management Area ROW Rights-of-Way

GRSG Greater Sage-Grouse TL Timing Limitation 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

While energy development has been identified as the primary threat to the Greater Sage-Grouse 

within its eastern range, wildfire also represents a threat to the species. Within the Rocky 

Mountain Region wildfire was identified by the COT Report (USFWS 2013) as a present and 

widespread threat in 7 of 13 Priority PACs and as a present but localized threat in the remaining 

PACs. Fire is a naturally occurring disturbance in sagebrush steppe and the incursion of 

nonnative annual grasses is facilitating an increase in mean fire frequency, which can preclude 

the opportunity for sagebrush to become re-established. As such, this ROD and Approved RMP 

include requirements that landscape scale Fire and Invasives Assessments be completed and 

updated regularly to more accurately define specific areas to be treated to address threats to

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Plan

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Worland Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse

September 2015 Conservation Summary
18 Worland Approved RMP

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Planfor 

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Worland Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Summary September 2015

sagebrush steppe habitat. Within the Rocky Mountain Region, assessments have not yet been 

completed but will be scheduled based on the need to identify and address potential threats. 

Additionally, the Secretary of the Interior issued Secretarial Order 3336 on January 5, 2015, which 

establishes the protection, conservation, and restoration of “the health of the sagebrush-steppe 

ecosystem and, in particular, Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, while maintaining safe and efficient 

operations as a critical fire management priority for the Department. The Secretarial Order will 

result in a final report of activities to be implemented prior to the 2016 western fire season. 

This will include prioritization and allocation of fire resources and the integration of emerging 

science, enhancing existing tools to implement the RMP and improve the BLM’s ability to protect 

sagebrush-steppe from damaging wildfires.

The Approved RMP also identifies conservation measures that are designed to protect, restore, 

and enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. The Approved RMP applies the following summarized 

management decisions, subject to valid existing rights, to other uses and resources, such as: 

● Providing a framework for prioritizing areas in PHMA and GHMA for wildfire, invasive 

annual grass, and conifer treatments.

● Adjusting grazing practices as necessary, based on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat objectives, 

land health standards, and ecological site potential.

● Requiring site-specific design features for certain lands and realty uses.

● Implementing a disturbance cap to limit disturbance in PHMAs.

● Including Greater Sage-Grouse habitat objectives in land health standards. 

The Approved RMP also establishes screening criteria and conditions for new anthropogenic 

activities in PHMAs and GHMAs to ensure a net conservation gain for Greater Sage-Grouse 

population and habitat, consistent with the State of Wyoming Core Area Strategy. The Approved 

RMP will reduce habitat disturbance and fragmentation through limitations on surface-disturbing 

activities, while addressing changes in resource condition and use through monitoring and 

adaptive management.

The Approved RMP’s Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management approach was built upon the 

foundation for Greater Sage-Grouse management established by and complementary to EO 

2011-5, Greater Sage Grouse Core Area Protection (Core Area Strategy) (Wyoming Office of the 

Governor 2011), by establishing similar conservation measures and focusing restoration efforts 

in the same key areas most valuable to Greater Sage-Grouse. On July 29, 2015, the State of 

Wyoming issued EO 2015-4, which replaced EO 2011-5 and EO 2013-3 (Wyoming Office of the 

Governor 2013). Through the Governor's Consistency Review of the Plan, it was determined that 

guidance and recommendations provided in EO 2015-4 were consistent with the Proposed RMP 

issued on May 29, 2015. Therefore, throughout the plan, references to the State of Wyoming's 

Core Area Protection strategy were updated to reference EO 2015-4. In addition, EO 2015-4 

modified the Core Area boundaries. The boundary changes are inconsistent with the maps and 

acreages presented in the Proposed RMP and therefore EO 2011-5 remains the reference for

the Core Area boundaries. 

Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse is a large-scale challenge that requires a landscape-scale 

solution spanning 11 western states. This Approved RMP would achieve the consistent rangewide conservation objectives outlined below and aligns with the State of Wyoming’s priorities 

and land management approaches. 
Worland Approved RMP 19

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Plan

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions

September 2015 for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

2.2.1. Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions for Greater 

Sage-Grouse Habitat

This section of the Approved RMP presents the goals, objectives, land use allocations, and 

management actions established for protecting and preserving Greater Sage-Grouse and its 

habitat on BLM-administered land in the Worland planning area. A Monitoring Framework is 

also included (in Appendix D, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Strategy (p. 271)) to 

describe how the program decisions will be tracked to ensure implementation. 

All of the goals, objectives, and management actions identified in this section can also be 

found in Chapter 3, Approved Resource Management Plan (p. 45) of this Approved RMP for 

other resources and/or program areas (e.g., Physical Resources) and have been consolidated 

in this section to depict how the agency will manage Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. For this 

reason, the goals, objectives, and management actions in this section are not paginated and retain 

the title/record number as they are presented in Chapter 3, Approved Resource Management

Plan (p. 45). 

Table 2.6, “Summary of Allocation Decisions by Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management

Areas” (p. 19), is a summary of the allocation decisions presented for each Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat management area. For allocation decisions specific to PHMAs and GHMAs, refer to 

the Greater Sage-Grouse habitat management maps (Maps 2-1 through 2-10) Appendix A,

Maps (p. 207). 

Table 2.6. Summary of Allocation Decisions by Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management 

Areas

Resource Priority Habitat Management 

Areas

General Habitat Management 

Areas

Land Tenure Retain Retain

Wind Avoidance Open

ROW Avoidance Open

Oil and Gas Open with Major Stipulations Open with Minor Stipulations

Geothermal Open Open

Salable Minerals Open Open

Locatable Minerals Open Open

Travel Management Limited Limited

Livestock Grazing1 Open Open

Note: This table provides a generalized summary of the management decisions contained in Table 2.8, “Worland

Approved RMP Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions Pertaining to Greater Sage-Grouse or Sagebrush

Habitat” (p. 29) of the Approved RMP. As a result, the decisions listed above may not apply to all locations within 

PHMAs or GHMAs; may be subject to certain exemption, modification, and waiver criteria; or may be subject to 

overlapping management decisions for other resources and resource uses. Please also note that all actions within 

priority or seasonal Greater Sage-Grouse habitat areas are subject to general limitations on surface-disturbing

and disruptive activities. For example, although PHMAs are generally open to salable mineral development, 

limitations on surface disturbance prohibit this activity within 0.6 mile of occupied leks inside PHMAs. See the 

specifics in the description below.

1 See Appendix O, Livestock Grazing (p. 563). 

GHMA General Habitat Management Area 

PHMA Priority Habitat Management Area 

ROW Rights-of-Way

RMP Resource Management Plan
20 Worland Approved RMP

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Planfor 

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions for 

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat September 2015

Minimize additional surface disturbance. The most effective way to conserve the Greater 

Sage-Grouse is to protect existing, intact habitat. The BLM would aim to reduce habitat 

fragmentation and protect key habitat areas. This Approved RMP would minimize surface 

disturbance on over two million acres of BLM-administered lands by allocating lands as PHMA 

and GHMA with decisions that aim to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. 

The limitations on mineral and right-of-way development along with the disturbance cap, 

lek buffers, and adaptive management would result in a net conservation gain for Greater 

Sage-Grouse. The Approved RMP prioritizes oil and gas development outside of Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat and focuses on a landscape-scale approach to conserving Greater

Sage-Grouse habitat. In the context of the planning area, land use allocations under the Approved 

RMP would limit or eliminate new surface disturbances in PHMA. 

The BLM also updated the Approved RMP to reflect new Greater Sage-Grouse state conservation 

strategies, including recent State of Wyoming EOs. The objectives of these documents are 

consistent with the State of Wyoming's Core Area Strategy, which is designed to protect Greater 

Sage-Grouse and its habitat within core areas using a suite of tools and mechanisms that work 

in concert to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse by reducing habitat loss and fragmentation through 

lek buffers, disturbance limits, exclusion of activities, and a sophisticated mapping utility to 

monitor the amount and density of disturbance. 

Improve habitat condition. While restoring lost sagebrush habitat can be very difficult in the 

short term, particularly in the most arid areas, it is often possible to enhance habitat quality 

through purposeful management. This Approved RMP commits to management actions necessary 

to achieve science-based vegetation and Greater Sage-Grouse habitat management objectives.

Habitat restoration and vegetation management actions would improve Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat and prioritize restoration in PHMAs. As a result, the restoration and management of 

vegetation actions would focus on Greater Sage-Grouse. For mitigation, the BLM would 

coordinate with the Wyoming Sage-Grouse Implementation Team for application of the "avoid, 

minimize, compensate" process to ensure anthropogenic activities result in a net conservation 

gain for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. 

The Approved RMP also includes a process for monitoring and adapting to changing conditions 

on the landscape. Using monitoring data for population and sagebrush canopy cover, the adaptive 

management strategy would apply more restrictive management where there is a consistent 

downward trend. The cause of the downward trend (e.g., anthropogenic disturbance, fire, disease) 

would be identified through monitoring data. 

Reduce threat of rangeland fire to Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitat. Rangeland 

fire can destroy sagebrush habitat and lead to the conversion of previously healthy habitat into 

landscapes dominated by invasive species. This Approved RMP incorporates Secretarial Order 

3336 and sets forth protocols to improve the BLM’s ability to protect Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

from damaging wildfire. Prescribed fire would only be used to improve or maintain habitat for 

Greater Sage-Grouse and to meet specific fuel objective standards.

Table 2.7, “Greater Sage-Grouse Seasonal Habitat Objectives” (p. 22), summarizes the 

characteristics that research has found represent the seasonal habitat needs for Greater

Sage-Grouse. The specific seasonal components identified in the table were adjusted based on 

local science and monitoring data to define the range of characteristics used in this subregion. 

Thus, the habitat objectives provide the broad vegetative conditions the BLM strives to obtain 
Worland Approved RMP 21

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Plan

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions

September 2015 for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

across the landscape that indicate the seasonal habitats used by Greater Sage-Grouse. These 

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

The habitat objectives will be part of the Greater Sage-Grouse habitat assessment to be used 

during land health evaluations (see Appendix D, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management

Strategy (p. 271)). These habitat objectives are not obtainable on every acre within the designated 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat management areas. Therefore, the determination on whether the 

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

condition identified in Table 2.7, “Greater Sage-Grouse Seasonal Habitat Objectives” (p. 22). All 

desired conditions will be dependent on site capability and local variation (e.g., weather patterns, 

localized drought, ecological site description state).

All BLM use authorizations will contain terms and conditions regarding the actions needed to 

meet or progress toward meeting the habitat objectives. If monitoring data show the habitat 

objectives have not been met nor progress being made towards meeting them, there will be an 

evaluation and a determination made as to the cause. If it is determined that the authorized use is a 

cause, the use will be adjusted by the response specified in the instrument that authorized the use. 
22 Worland Approved RMP

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Planfor 

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions for 

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat September 2015

Table 2.7. Greater Sage-Grouse Seasonal Habitat Objectives 

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition1 Reference

Breeding and Nesting (Seasonal Use Period March 1-June 15)

Doherty, K.E. 2008. 

Sage-grouse and Energy 

Development: Integrating

Science with Conservation 

Planning to Reduce 

Impacts.

Holloran, M.J., and S.H. 

Anderson. 2005. Spatial 

Distribution of Greater 

Sage-grouse nests in 

relatively contiguous 

sagebrush habitats.

Lek Security Proximity of trees Trees absent or uncommon 

on shrub/grassland 

ecological sites within

1.8 miles (approximately 3 

km) of occupied leks.

Baruch-Mordo, S., J.S. 

Evans, J.P. Severson, D.E. 

Naugle, J.D. Maestas, J.M. 

Kiesecker, M.J. Falkowski,

C.A. Hagen, and K.P. 

Reese. 2013. Saving 

Greater Sage-grouse from 

trees.

Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes,

D.E. Naugle, P.D. Makela,

D.A. Nance, and J.W. Karl. 

2015. Sage‐Grouse Habitat 

Assessment Framework: 

Multi-scale Habitat 

Assessment Tool. Bureau

of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies 

Technical Reference

6710-1. U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management, Denver, 

Colorado.

Proximity of sagebrush to 

leks

Adjacent protective 

sagebrush cover within

330 feet (approximately 100

m) of an occupied lek.

Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes,

D.E. Naugle, P.D. Makela,

D.A. Nance, and J.W. Karl. 

2015. Sage‐Grouse Habitat 

Assessment Framework: 

Multi-scale Habitat 

Assessment Tool. Bureau

of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies 

Technical Reference

6710-1. U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management, Denver, 

Colorado.
Worland Approved RMP 23

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Plan

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions

September 2015 for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition1 Reference

Cover Percent of seasonal habitat 

meeting desired conditions

Greater than 80 percent 

of the nesting habitat 

meets the recommended 

vegetation characteristics,

where appropriate (relative 

to ecological site potential, 

etc.).

Connelly, J.W., M.A. 

Schroeder, A.R. Sands, 

and C.E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations and their 

habitats. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 28:967-985.

Sagebrush cover2 5 to 25 percent Connelly, J.W., M.A. 

Schroeder, A.R. Sands, 

and C.E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations and their 

habitats. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 28:967-985.

Connelly, J.W., K.P. Reese, 

and M.A. Schroeder.

2003. Monitoring of 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitats and populations. 

University of Idaho College 

of Natural Resources 

Experiment Station Bulletin

80. University of Idaho, 

Moscow, ID.

Hagen, C.A., J.W. Connelly, 

and M.A. Schroeder.

2007. A meta-analysis 

of Greater Sage-Grouse

Centrocercus urophasianus 

nesting and brood-rearing 

habitats. Wildlife Biology 

13 (Supplement 1):42-50.

Sagebrush height 

Arid sites3 

Mesic sites4

4 to 31 inches (10 to 80 cm)

12 to 31 inches (30 to 80 

cm)

Connelly, J.W., M.A. 

Schroeder, A.R. Sands, 

and C.E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations and their 

habitats. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 28:967-985.
24 Worland Approved RMP

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Planfor 

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions for 

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat September 2015

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition1 Reference

Predominant sagebrush 

shape

Predominantly spreading 

shape5

Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes,

D.E. Naugle, P.D. Makela,

D.A. Nance, and J.W. Karl. 

2015. Sage‐Grouse Habitat 

Assessment Framework: 

Multi-scale Habitat 

Assessment Tool. Bureau

of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies 

Technical Reference

6710-1. U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management, Denver, 

Colorado.

Perennial grass cover (such 

as native bunchgrasses)2

Arid sites3 

Mesic sites4

Greater than or equal to 10 

percent

Greater than or equal to 15 

percent

Cool-season bunchgrasses 

preferred

Connelly, J.W., M.A. 

Schroeder, A.R. Sands, 

and C.E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations and their 

habitats. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 28:967-985.

Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes,

D.E. Naugle, P.D. Makela,

D.A. Nance, and J.W. Karl. 

2015. Sage‐Grouse Habitat 

Assessment Framework: 

Multi-scale Habitat 

Assessment Tool. Bureau

of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies 

Technical Reference

6710-1. U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management, Denver, 

Colorado.

Cagney J., E. Bainter, B. 

Budd, T. Christiansen,

V. Herren, M. Holloran,

B. Rashford, M. Smith, 

and J. Williams. 2010. 

Grazing influence, 

objective development, and 

management in Wyoming’s 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat. University of 

Wyoming College of 

Agriculture Extension 

Bulletin B-1203. Laramie.
Worland Approved RMP 25

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Plan

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions

September 2015 for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition1 Reference

Perennial grass and forb 

height (includes residual 

grasses)

Adequate nest cover greater 

than or equal to 7 inches

or as determined by ESD 

site potential and local 

variability.

Connelly, J.W., M.A. 

Schroeder, A.R. Sands, 

and C.E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations and their 

habitats. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 28:967-985.

Connelly, J.W., K.P. Reese, 

and M.A. Schroeder.

2003. Monitoring of 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitats and populations. 

University of Idaho College 

of Natural Resources 

Experiment Station Bulletin

80. University of Idaho, 

Moscow, ID.

Doherty, K.E., D.E. Naugle,

J.D. Tack, B.L Walker,

J.M. Graham, and J.L. 

Beck. 2014. Linking 

Conservation Actions 

to Demography: Grass

Height Explains Variation 

in Greater Sage‐grouseNest 

Survival. Wildlife Biology 

20(6): 320-325.

Hagen, C.A., J.W. Connelly, 

and M.A. Schroeder. 2007. 

A meta-analysis of greater 

Greater Sage‐Grouse 

Centrocercus urophasianus

nesting and brood-rearing 

habitats. Wildlife Biology 

13 (Supplement 1):42-50.

Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes,

D.E. Naugle, P.D. Makela, 

D.A. Nance, and J.W. Karl. 

2015. Sage‐Grouse Habitat 

Assessment Framework: 

Multi-scale Habitat 

Assessment Tool. Bureau

of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies 

Technical Reference

6710-1. U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management, Denver, 

Colorado.
26 Worland Approved RMP

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Planfor 

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions for 

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat September 2015

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition1 Reference

Perennial forb cover2 

Arid sites3

Mesic sites4

Greater than or equal to 5 

percent

Greater than or equal to 10 

percent

Connelly, J.W., M.A. 

Schroeder, A.R. Sands, 

and C.E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations and their 

habitats. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 28:967-985.

Brood Rearing/Summer (Seasonal Use Period June 16-October 31)6

Cover Percent of seasonal habitat 

meeting desired condition

Greater than 40 percent of 

the summer/brood habitat 

meets recommended brood 

habitat characteristics 

where appropriate (relative 

to ecological site potential, 

etc.).

Connelly, J.W., M.A. 

Schroeder, A.R. Sands, 

and C.E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations and their 

habitats. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 28:967-985.

Sagebrush cover2 5 to 25 percent Connelly, J.W., M.A. 

Schroeder, A.R. Sands, 

and C.E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations and their 

habitats. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 28:967-985.

Sagebrush height 4 to 32 inches (10 to 80 cm) Connelly, J.W., M.A. 

Schroeder, A.R. Sands, 

and C.E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations and their 

habitats. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 28:967-985.

Perennial grass cover and 

forbs2

Greater than or equal to 5 

percent arid sites

Greater than or equal to 10 

percent mesic sites

Connelly, J.W., M.A. 

Schroeder, A.R. Sands, 

and C.E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations and their 

habitats. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 28:967-985.

Riparian areas/mesic 

meadows2

Proper functioning 

condition

Preferred forbs are listed 

in Stiver et al. 2015.

Overall total forb cover 

may be greater than that of 

preferred forb cover since 

not all forb species are listed 

as preferred.
Worland Approved RMP 27

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Plan

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions

September 2015 for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition1 Reference

Upland and riparian 

perennial forb availability

Preferred forbs are common 

with several preferred 

species present7

Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes,

D.E. Naugle, P.D. Makela,

D.A. Nance, and J.W. Karl. 

2015. Sage‐Grouse Habitat 

Assessment Framework: 

Multi-scale Habitat 

Assessment Tool. Bureau

of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies 

Technical Reference

6710-1. U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management, Denver, 

Colorado.

Winter (Seasonal Use Period November 1-February 28)6

Cover and Food Percent of seasonal habitat 

meeting desired conditions

Greater than 80 percent 

of the wintering habitat 

meets winter habitat 

characteristics where 

appropriate (relative to 

ecological site, etc.).

Connelly, J.W., M.A. 

Schroeder, A.R. Sands, 

and C.E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations and their 

habitats. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 28:967-985.

Sagebrush cover above 

snow2

Greater than 5 percent Connelly, J.W., M.A. 

Schroeder, A.R. Sands, 

and C.E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations and their 

habitats. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 28:967-985.

Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes,

D.E. Naugle, P.D. Makela,

D.A. Nance, and J.W. Karl. 

2015. Sage‐Grouse Habitat 

Assessment Framework: 

Multi-scale Habitat 

Assessment Tool. Bureau

of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies 

Technical Reference

6710-1. U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management, Denver, 

Colorado.
28 Worland Approved RMP

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Planfor 

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions for 

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat September 2015

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition1 Reference

Sagebrush height above 

snow

Greater than 10 inches 

(greater than 25 cm)

Connelly, J.W., M.A. 

Schroeder, A.R. Sands, 

and C.E. Braun. 2000. 

Guidelines to manage 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations and their 

habitats. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 28:967-985. 1All desired conditions will be dependent on site capability and local variation (e.g., weather 

patterns, localized drought, ESD state).

2Absolute cover is the actual recorded cover and can exceed 100 percent when recorded across all 

species and all layers. It is not relative cover, which is the proportions of each species, and equals 

100 percent. Note that cover is reported for only those species (e.g., sagebrush, preferred forbs) that 

are sampled to determine suitability of habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse. Overall cover at the site 

will be greater than that sampled for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, due to other species present. 3Arid corresponds to the 10 – 12 inch precipitation zone; Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis is a common big sagebrush sub-species for this type of site (Stiver et al. 2015). 4Mesic corresponds to the >12 inch precipitation zone; Artemisia tridentata vaseyana 

is a common big sagebrush sub-species for this type of site (Stiver et al. 2015). 5Collectively the indicators for sagebrush (cover, height, and shape), perennial grass, and perennial

forb (cover, height, and/or availability) represent the desired condition range for nesting/early brood-rearing 

habitat characteristics, consistent with the breeding habitat suitability matrix identified in Stiver et al. 2015. 

Sagebrush plants that are more tree or columnar-shaped provide less protective cover near the ground than 

sagebrush plants with a spreading shape (Stiver et al. 2015). Some sagebrush plants are naturally columnar (e.g., 

Great Basin big sagebrush), and a natural part of the plant community. However, a predominance of columnar 

shape arising from animal impacts may warrant management investigation or adjustments at site specific scales. 6Where credible data support different seasonal dates than those identified, dates may

be shifted but the amount of days cannot be shortened or lengthened by the local unit. 7Preferred forbs are listed in Stiver et al. 2015. Overall total forb cover may be 

greater than that of preferred forb cover since not all forb species are listed as preferred.

> greater than 

cm centimeter

ESD Ecological Site Descriptions

km kilometer

m meter

Table 2.8, “Worland Approved RMP Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions Pertaining

to Greater Sage-Grouse or Sagebrush Habitat” (p. 29), represents the goals, objectives, and 

management decisions from Chapter 3, Approved Resource Management Plan (p. 45) thatpertain 

to Greater Sage-Grouse or sagebrush habitat.
Table 2.8. Worland Approved RMP Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions Pertaining to Greater Sage-Grouse or 

Sagebrush Habitat 

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

2000 MINERAL RESOURCES

Objectives:

MR:2.3 Priority will be given to leasing and development of fluid mineral resources, including geothermal, outside of PHMA 

and GHMA. When analyzing leasing and authorizing development of fluid mineral resources, including geothermal, in PHMA 

and GHMA, and subject to applicable stipulations for the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse, priority will be given to 

development in non-habitat areas first and then in the least suitable habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse. The implementation of 

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

30 U.S.C. 226(p) and 43 CFR 3162.3-1(h).

MR:2.4 Where a proposed fluid mineral development project on an existing lease could adversely affect Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations or habitat, the BLM will work with the lessees, operators, or other project proponents to avoid, reduce, and 

mitigate adverse impacts to the extent compatible with lessees' rights to drill and produce fluid mineral resources. The BLM 

will work with the lessee, operator, or project proponent in developing an APD for the lease to avoid and minimize impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse or its habitat and will ensure that the best information about the Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat 

informs and helps to guide development of such federal leases.

2005 MR:1.1

MR:1.3

MR:3.1

Consider interest in exploration for, or leasing of, federal coal (Map 3-5), if any on a case-by-case basis. Allow coal 

exploration licenses subject to the regulations of 43 CFR 3410, and subject to guidance mitigating for surface‐disturbing 

activities in the Wyoming BLM Standard Oil and Gas‐Lease Stipulations (Appendix B, Oil and Gas Lease Notices and Lease

Stipulations, including Exception, Modification, and Waiver Criteria (p. 211)). Before issuing a coal exploration license,

require the authorized officer to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, if necessary, of the 

potential effects of the proposed exploration on the natural and socioeconomic environment of the affected area.

If an application for a federal coal lease is received, conduct an appropriate land use and environmental analysis, including the 

coal screening process, to determine whether the area(s) proposed for leasing is (are) acceptable for coal development and 

leasing (as per 43 CFR 3425). If public lands are determined to be acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing, amend 

the land use plan as necessary. Only accept federal coal lease applications on those federal coal lands with development 

potential identified as suitable for further leasing consideration, after application of the coal screens and unsuitability criteria. 

At the time an application for a new coal lease or lease modification is submitted to the BLM, the BLM will determine 

whether the lease application area is "unsuitable" for all or certain coal mining methods pursuant to 43 CFR 3461.5. PHMA is 

essential habitat for maintaining Greater Sage-Grouse for purposes of the suitability criteria set forth at 43 CFR 3461.5(o)(1). 

The BLM will also consider that USFWS has found “the core area strategy...if implemented by all landowners via regulatory 

mechanisms, would provide adequate protection for sage-grouse and their habitats in the state” when considering leasing 

coal in PHMAs under the criteria set for at 43 CFR 3461.5(o)(1) (USFWS 2010).

Worland Approved RMP 29

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Plan

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat September 2015
Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

2013 MR:1.1

MR:1.3

MR:2.1

MR:2.3

Process oil and gas lease applications on a case-by-case basis. Ensure that leasing activities in PHMAs comply with Greater 

Sage-Grouse RMP decisions and remain in compliance with laws, regulations, and policy.

2023 MR:1.1

MR:1.3

MR:2.1

Delineate Oil and Gas Management Areas (Map 3-9) (333,488 acres of federal mineral estate) around existing 

intensively-developed fields, applying a 2-mile buffer from the outer boundary of the existing field (Map 3-10); adding 

enhanced oil recovery areas identified by the Governor’s Office Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute and excluding Greater 

Sage-Grouse PHMAs. Manage these areas primarily for oil and gas exploration and development.

Oil and gas development, including enhanced oil recovery operations, within Oil and Gas Management Areas is allowed to 

take place at the same level and density as the existing development in the field. Levels and densities beyond the existing field 

development may require additional reclamation or compensatory offsite mitigation.

As oil and gas fields expand or exploration reaches beyond the Oil and Gas Management Areas depicted on Map 3-9, Oil 

and Gas Management Areas may be enlarged as appropriate. To enlarge Oil and Gas Management Areas, the expansion 

area would:

i) have to be adjacent to the field and under valid oil and gas lease(s) with stipulations allowing surface occupancy and 

development;

ii) have to have a surface density of, on average, at least four well pads per 640-acres; a determination that additional well 

density is required to efficiently and adequately produce the oil or gas resource;

iii) have a project-specific environmental analysis prepared to analyze the impacts and determine operating methods, 

mitigation, and BMPs to be used in the efficient and comprehensive development of the field;

iv) need surface resources to be satisfactorily mitigated; and

v) need commitment to accelerate reclamation as required by the authorized officer.

3000 FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT

Objectives:

FM:1.5 Following wildland fires, conduct appropriate emergency stabilization and rehabilitation when and where needed. In 

priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat areas, prioritize suppression immediately after life and property to conserve the habitat. 

In general Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, prioritize suppression where wildfires threaten priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.

FM:2.1 Consult and cooperate with adjacent landowners, state and local governments, and other stakeholders to plan and 

implement prescribed fire and other vegetation treatments across the landscape. In areas of general Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat, design and implement fuels treatments with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems.

30 Worland Approved RMPChapter 2 Approved Resource Management Planfor Greater Sage-Grouse HabitatGreater SageGoals, Objectives, and Management Decisions for 

-Grouse Habitat September 2015
Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

3008 FM:1 Suppress fires threatening Greater Sage-Grouse habitats and crucial winter wildlife habitat within Wyoming big sagebrush 

communities. Where fire would be utilized to meet resource objectives, work closely with resource specialists to protect and 

improve Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.

For fuels management, the BLM would consider multiple tools for fuels reduction and would analyze in NEPA compliance 

documentation before electing to implement prescribed fire in PHMAs.

If prescribed fire is used in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, the NEPA analysis for the Burn Plan will address:

● why alternative techniques were not selected as a viable options;

● how Greater Sage-Grouse goals and objectives would be met by its use;

● how the COT Report objectives would be addressed and met; and

● a risk assessment to address how potential threats to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would be minimized.

Prescribed fire as a vegetation or fuels treatment in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat shall only be considered after the NEPA 

analysis for the Burn Plan has addressed the four bullets outlined above. Prescribed fire could be used to meet specific fuels 

objectives that would protect Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in PHMAs (e.g., creation of fuel breaks that would disrupt the 

fuel continuity across the landscape in stands where annual invasive grasses are a minor component in the understory, 

burning slash piles from conifer reduction treatments, used as a component with other treatment methods to combat annual 

grasses and restore native plant communities).

Prescribed fire in known crucial winter wildlife habitat shall only be considered after the NEPA analysis for the Burn Plan 

has addressed the four bullets outlined above. Any prescribed fire in and/or around crucial winter wildlife habitat must be 

strategically-designed to reduce wildfire risk and protect winter range habitat quality.

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Worland Approved RMP 31

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Plan

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat September 2015
Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

Objective:

BR:2.6 In PHMAs, the desired condition is to maintain all lands ecologically capable of producing sagebrush (but no less than 

70 percent) with a minimum of 15 percent sagebrush cover or as consistent with specific ecological site conditions. The 

attributes necessary to sustain these habitats are described in Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (BLM Technical 

Reference 1734-6 [BLM 2005c]).

GOAL BR:9 GREATER SAGE-GROUSE – Sustain the integrity of the sagebrush biome to provide the amount, continuity, 

and quality of habitat that is necessary to maintain sustainable populations of Greater Sage-Grouse and other species

by achieving the objectives below.

Objective:

BR:9.1 Maintain large patches of high quality sagebrush habitats, with emphasis on patches occupied by Greater Sage-Grouse.

BR:9.2 Maintain connections between sagebrush habitats, with emphasis on connections between habitats occupied 

by Greater Sage-Grouse.

Objective:

BR:10.1 Reconnect large patches of sagebrush habitat with emphasis on reconnecting patches occupied by stronghold and 

isolated populations of Greater Sage-Grouse.

4058 BR:5.1 Maintain or improve important wildlife habitats through vegetative manipulations, habitat improvement projects, livestock 

grazing strategies and the application of The Wyoming Guidelines for Managing Sagebrush Communities with Emphasis 

on Fire Management (Wyoming Interagency Vegetation Committee 2002) and the Wyoming BLM Standard Mitigation

Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities (Appendix F, Wyoming Bureau of Land Management Mitigation

Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities (p. 349)), BMPs (Appendix C, Required Design Features and

Best Management Practices (p. 249)), and similar guidance updated over time.

4070 BR:5.1

BR:5.3

Conduct habitat enhancement vegetation treatments within sagebrush communities as opportunities and funding allow, 

consistent with EO 2015-4 (Wyoming Office of the Governor 2015).

4071 BR:5.1

BR:6.1

Modify identified hazard fences, and analyze and construct new fences in accordance with wildlife needs, the BLM Fencing 

Handbook 1741-1, and WO IM 2010-022, Managing Structures for the Safety of Sage-grouse, Sharp-tailed grouse, and 

Lesser Prairie-chicken, and similar guidance and policy as updated over time.

4076 BR:6.1 Allow water development projects in crucial elk winter range and in greater Greater Sage-Grouse nesting habitat with 10 

inches or less annual precipitation only when adverse effects can be avoided, minimized and/or compensated based on 

site-specific analysis. Allow existing uses pending site-specific analysis on a priority basis.

4080 BR:6.1 Avoid wind energy projects in big game crucial winter range and raptor concentration areas.

Wind-energy development would be avoided in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs (Map 3-17), and not allowed unless it can 

be sufficiently demonstrated that the development activity would not result in declines of Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA 

populations. Sufficient demonstration of “no declines” should be coordinated with the WGFD and USFWS.

32 Worland Approved RMPChapter 2 Approved Resource Management Planfor Greater Sage-Grouse HabitatGreater SageGoals, Objectives, and Management Decisions for 

-Grouse Habitat September 2015
Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

4087 BR:9.1 Discourage the use of broad-spectrum insecticides where insect control is required. Target pest control toward key problem 

areas and schedule applications to be effective in minimum doses in Greater Sage-Grouse brood-rearing areas. Field Offices 

may implement treatments within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat utilizing RAATS protocols.

4088 BR:9.1 Avoid aerial pesticide spraying in favor of ground applications to minimize drift into non-target areas in Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat unless benefits of treatments are likely to outweigh impacts.

4089 BR:9.1 Avoid applying pesticides to Greater Sage-Grouse breeding habitat during the nesting and early brood-rearing season (March 

15 through June 30) to reduce the loss of food supply to chicks and avoid the chance of secondary poisoning unless benefits 

of treatments are likely to outweigh impacts.

4090 BR:10.1 Maintain seeps, springs, wet meadows, and riparian vegetation in a functional and diverse condition for young Greater 

Sage-Grouse and other species that depend on forbs and insects associated with these areas.

Consider management actions if desirable green vegetation associated with these wet areas is not available, accessible, or 

cannot be maintained with current livestock, wildlife, or wild horse use, and the impacts are outweighed by the improved 

habitat quality.

4091 BR:10.1 Restore Greater Sage-Grouse brood-rearing habitats in riparian/wetland areas.

4092 BR:10.1 Restore lost riparian functioning systems by repairing abnormally incised drainages to raise water tables and increase water 

storage and brood-rearing habitats within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.

4093 BR:9.1 Manage vegetation composition diversity and structure, as determined by ESD, or other methods that reference site potential, 

and WGFD protocols to achieve Greater Sage-Grouse habitat management objectives, in cooperation with stakeholders.

Evaluate the role of existing seedings that are currently composed of primarily introduced perennial grasses in and adjacent 

to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat to determine if they should be restored to Greater Sage-Grouse or habitat of higher quality 

for Greater Sage-Grouse. If these seedings provide value in conserving or enhancing Greater Sage-Grouse habitats, then 

no restoration would be necessary. Assess the compatibility of these seedings for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat during

the land health assessments.

Burned areas within PHMAs would be restored to suitable habitat with consideration given to ESDs, reference sites, site 

potential and local variability.

The BLM could bring in burned area rehabilitation and Burned Area Emergency Response teams who would work 

cooperatively with partners at the federal, state, and local levels to rehabilitate and restore Greater Sage-Grouse habitats in a 

manner consistent with the core habitat populations area strategy for conservation. DDCT reviews would be conducted in 

coordination with the WGFD Habitat Protection Program located in Cheyenne, Wyoming at the WGFD headquarters. Areas 

within PHMAs would be prioritized for restoration of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat beyond immediate response.

4094 BR:10.1 Maintain sagebrush and understory diversity (relative to ecological site description) in crucial seasonal Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitats unless such removal is necessary to achieve Greater Sage-Grouse habitat management objectives. For example, 

thinning small patches of dense sagebrush may increase desirable forbs in early brood-rearing habitat.

4095 BR:10.1 Increase the composition and canopy cover of Wyoming big sagebrush, within existing nonnative grass seedings with less than 

5 percent sagebrush canopy cover, to greater than or equal to neighboring sagebrush communities or historical levels. (See 

Shrubland-Salt Desert/Salt Bottom on Map 3-15; deeper soiled, and gentler sloped portions of the Shrubland-Salt Desert/Salt 

Bottom, colored in pink, would be those areas where sagebrush restoration efforts could be conducted.)

Worland Approved RMP 33

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Plan

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat September 2015
Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

4096 BR:10.1 Investigate opportunities to increase sagebrush in lower precipitation zones.

4097 BR:9.1 Plan and construct mining and mineral development activities, to the degree possible given state water rights, to minimize 

disturbances that would result in alterations to springs and riparian Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Alternative water sources 

may be developed to replace natural sources that have been affected or destroyed during these development activities.

4098 BR:8.3

BR:8.5

Treat constructed or non-natural water storage impoundments to control mosquito breeding (and the associated spread of 

West Nile virus), to prevent disease spread to Greater Sage-Grouse as necessary.

4099 BR:9.1 In cooperation with stakeholders, manage to promote the growth and persistence of native shrubs, grasses, and forbs needed 

by Greater Sage-Grouse for seasonal food and concealment.

4100 BR:9.1 In cooperation with stakeholders, design and locate fences so as not to disturb PHMAs. Increase the visibility of fences in 

these areas which have been identified as hazardous to flying Greater Sage-Grouse.

4101 BR:9.1 Conduct fire management activities to minimize overall wildfire size and frequency in sagebrush plant communities where 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat objectives are at risk.

General priorities for habitat protection:

Priority # 1 – Protection of Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs.

Priority # 2 – Wyoming big sagebrush communities outside Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs and habitats recovering from 

disturbance within or adjacent to Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs.

4102 BR:9.1 Annually maintain FMPs to incorporate updated sagebrush habitat information as well as fire suppression priorities in 

sagebrush habitats. Incorporate fire management objectives for the management of sagebrush ecosystems into FMPs. Provide 

fire management objectives for sagebrush ecosystems to initial attack personnel at the beginning of each fire season.

4103 BR:10.1 Establish fuels treatment projects at strategic locations to minimize size of wildfires and limit loss of Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat.

4104 BR:10.1 Reintroduce appropriate fire regimes to limit conifer encroachment into the sagebrush plant communities. Take into account 

invasive herbaceous species and Fire Regime Group and FRCC (measure of departure from historic fire regime) with 

treatments. Where possible, achieve a balance between treating areas that have significantly departed from the historic fire 

regime (Condition Class 3) and areas that are functioning within an appropriate fire regime (Condition Class 1).

4105 BR:10.1 Remove conifers encroaching into sagebrush habitats in a manner that considers tribal and cultural values. Prioritize 

treatments closest to occupied Greater Sage-Grouse habitats and near occupied leks, and where juniper encroachment is 

phase 1 or phase 2 as defined in Miller et al. (2005). Refine the location of specific priority areas to be treated by utilizing 

site-specific analysis and principles like those included in the FIAT report (Chambers et. al. [2014]) and other ongoing 

modeling efforts to address conifer encroachment.

34 Worland Approved RMPChapter 2 Approved Resource Management Planfor Greater Sage-Grouse HabitatGreater SageGoals, Objectives, and Management Decisions for 

-Grouse Habitat September 2015
Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

4106 BR:7.1-7.4 

BR:9.1

BR:9.2

Inside PHMAs

Prohibit surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities on or within a 0.6-mile radius of the perimeter of occupied 

Greater Sage-Grouse leks. The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmental record of review determines 

that the action, as proposed or conditioned, would not impair the function or utility of the site for the current or subsequent 

seasonal habitat, life-history, or behavioral needs of Greater Sage-Grouse (Map 3-17).

Outside PHMAs

Prohibit surface-disturbing and disruptive activities and apply a NSO restriction within a 1⁄4-mile radius of the perimeter of 

occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks (Map 3-17).

Outside Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs, the BLM’s goal is to sustain important habitats that support core populations and to 

maintain lek persistence over the long term in sufficient proportions of the Greater Sage-Grouse population to facilitate 

movement and genetic transfer between core populations, including those found in adjacent states.

4107 BR:7.2

BR:9.1

Inside PHMAs

Prohibit disruptive activities on or within a 0.6-mile radius of the perimeter of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks from 

March 15 to June 30 (81,281 acres).

Outside PHMAs

Prohibit disruptive activities on or within a 1⁄4 mile radius of the perimeter of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks from 

March 15 to June 30 (3,157 acres).

Inside PHMAs

Prohibit surface-disturbing and/or disruptive activities from March 15 to June 30 to protect Greater Sage-Grouse breeding, 

nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat (1,021,583 acres). Apply this timing limitation throughout the PHMAs. Activities 

in unsuitable habitats would be evaluated under the exception and modification criteria and could be allowed on a 

case-by-case basis.

Outside PHMAs

Prohibit surface-disturbing and/or disruptive activities in Greater Sage-Grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitat 

within a 2-mile radius of the perimeter of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks from March 15 to June 30.

Note: Where credible data support different timeframes for these seasonal restrictions, dates may be expanded by up to 14 

days prior to or subsequent to the above dates.

Worland Approved RMP 35

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Plan

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat September 2015
Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

4108 BR:7.2

BR:9.1

Greater Sage-Grouse winter concentration areas:

Surface-disturbing and/or disruptive activities in sage-grouse winter concentration areas would be prohibited from December 

1–March 14. Activities in unsuitable habitats within PHMAs would be evaluated under the exception and modification criteria 

and could be allowed on a case-by-case basis. Protection of additional mapped winter concentration areas in GHMAs

would be implemented only where winter concentration areas are identified as supporting biologically significant numbers 

of sage-grouse nesting in PHMAs and/or attending leks within PHMAs. Appropriate seasonal timing restrictions and 

habitat protection measures would be considered and evaluated in consultation with the WGFD in all identified winter 

concentration areas.

Evaluate and allow activities in unsuitable habitats within PHMAs in accordance with exception and modification criteria on a 

case-by-case basis.

Protection of additional mapped winter concentration areas in GHMAs would be implemented only where winter 

concentration areas are identified as supporting biologically significant numbers of Greater Sage-Grouse nesting in PHMAs 

and/or attending leks within PHMAs. Appropriate seasonal timing restrictions and habitat protection measures would be 

considered and evaluated in consultation with the WGFD in all identified winter concentration areas.

36 Worland Approved RMPChapter 2 Approved Resource Management Planfor Greater Sage-Grouse HabitatGreater SageGoals, Objectives, and Management Decisions for 

-Grouse Habitat September 2015
Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

4109 BR:7.2

BR:9.1

Density of Disturbances:

In Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs, the density of disturbance of energy or mining facilities would be limited to an average of 

one site per square mile (640 acres) within the DDCT, subject to valid existing rights (Appendix D, Greater Sage-Grouse

Habitat Management Strategy (p. 271)). The one location and cumulative value of existing disturbances would not exceed 

5 percent of habitat of the DDCT area. Inside PHMA, all suitable habitat disturbed (any program area) will not exceed 5 

percent within the DDCT area using the DDCT process.

Consolidate anthropogenic features from development and transmission on the landscape. Allow on a case-by-case basis high 

profile structures within Greater Sage-Grouse nesting habitat.

Sagebrush Treatment: For vegetation treatments in sagebrush within PHMAs, refer to WGFD Protocols for Treating 

Sagebrush to Benefit Sage-Grouse (WGFD 2011, as updated) and BLM WO IM 2013-128 (Sage-grouse Conservation Related 

to Wildland Fire and Fuels Management). These recommended protocols, subject to seasonal conditions of approval, would 

be used in determining whether proposed treatment constitutes a “disturbance” that would contribute toward the 5 percent 

threshold for habitat maintenance.

Additionally, these protocols would be used to determine whether the proposed treatment configuration would be expected to 

have neutral or beneficial impacts for PHMA populations or if they represent additional habitat loss or fragmentation.

Treatments to enhance sagebrush/grasslands habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse would be evaluated based upon habitat quality 

and the functionality/use of treated habitats post-treatment.

The BLM would work collaboratively with partners at the state and local levels to maintain and enhance Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitats.

Seasonal restrictions would be applied, as needed, for implementing fuels management treatments according to the type 

of seasonal habitat present.

Wildfire burns will be treated as disturbed if sagebrush is reduced below 5 percent unless there is an implementation plan 

outlining restorationefforts and 3 years of data showing a trend back to suitable habitat.

4110 BR:7.2

BR:9.1

New project noise levels, either individual or cumulative, should not exceed 10 dBA (as measured by L50) above baseline 

noise at the perimeter of the lek from 6:00 pm to 8:00 am during the breeding season (March 1 to May 15). Specific noise 

protocols for measurement and implementation will be developed as additional research and information emerges.

Worland Approved RMP 37

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Plan

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat September 2015
Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

4111 BR:7.1-7.4 

BR:9.1

BR:9.2

Allow motorized vehicle use in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs consistent with other resource objectives.

Manage new road construction in and adjacent to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat consistent with applicable restrictions on 

surface-disturbing and disruptive activities. Avoid construction of new or local collector roads (as defined in BLM Manual 

9113 [BLM 2011d]) within 1.9 miles of the perimeter of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks within PHMAs.

Prohibit all new roads within 0.6 miles of the perimeter of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks within PHMAs. 

Construct roads to minimum design standards needed for production activities.

4112 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

In PHMAs, implement mitigation and minimization guidelines and required design features, including specific measures 

for Greater Sage-Grouse (refer to Appendix C, Required Design Features and Best Management Practices (p. 249)), as

applicable and consistent with EO 2015-4 (Wyoming Office of the Governor 2015). Incorporate Greater Sage-Grouse specific 

measures into project proposals as required design features or mitigation for any authorized federal action, regardless of 

surface ownership.

4113 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

In PHMAs, require the development of a wildlife resource monitoring and mitigation plan to address potential impacts from 

mineral development on wildlife populations and/or habitat on a case-by-case basis.

4114 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Use the following travel management criteria in PHMAs:

● During subsequent travel management planning, all routes within PHMAs would undergo a route evaluation to determine 

its purpose and need and the potential resource and/or user conflicts from motorized travel. Where resource and/or

user conflicts outweigh the purpose and need for the route, the route would be considered for closure or considered for 

relocation outside of sensitive Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.

● During implementation-level travel planning, threats to Greater Sage-Grouse and their habitat would be considered when 

evaluating route designations and/or closures.

● During subsequent travel management planning, routes within PHMAs that do not have a purpose or need would 

be considered for closure.

● During subsequent travel management planning, routes within PHMAs that are duplicative parallel, or redundantwould 

be considered for closure.

● During subsequent travel management planning, OHV timing limitations would be considered in important seasonal 

habitats where OHV use is a threat.

● During subsequent travel management planning, consider limiting snow machine travel to designated routes or consider 

seasonal closures in Greater Sage-Grouse wintering areas from November 1 through March 31.

● During subsequent travel management planning, routes in PHMAs not required for public access or recreation with a 

current administrative/agency purpose or need would be evaluated for administrative access only.

● During subsequent travel management planning, prioritize restoration of routes not designated in a TravelManagement 

Plan within PHMAs.

● During subsequent travel management planning, consider using seed mixes or transplant techniques that will maintain or 

enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitat when rehabilitating linear disturbances.

● During subsequent travel management planning, consider scheduling road maintenance to avoid disturbance during 

sensitive periods and times to the extent practicable. Use time of day limits (after 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM) to reduce impacts 

on Greater Sage-Grouse during breeding and nesting periods.

38 Worland Approved RMPChapter 2 Approved Resource Management Planfor Greater Sage-Grouse HabitatGreater SageGoals, Objectives, and Management Decisions for 

-Grouse Habitat September 2015
Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

4115 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

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

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat will be addressed before consequences become severe or irreversible.

Adaptive management triggers are essential for identifying when potential management changes are needed in order to 

continue meeting Greater Sage-Grouse conservation objectives. With respect to Greater Sage-Grouse, all regulatory entities in 

Wyoming, including the BLM, use soft and hard triggers. Soft and hard triggers are focused on three metrics: 1) number of 

active leks, 2) acres of available habitat, and 3) population trends based on annual lek counts. See Appendix D, Greater

Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Strategy (p. 271) for more information on soft and hard triggers.

Soft Triggers Response:

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

action or that unanticipated changes to populations or habitats have occurred that have the potential to place habitats or 

populations at risk. The soft trigger is any deviation from normal trends in habitat or population in any given year. Metrics 

include, but are not limited to, annual lek counts, wing counts, aerial surveys, habitat monitoring, and DDCT evaluations. 

For population metrics, normal population trends are calculated as the 5-year running mean of annual population counts. 

BLM field offices, with the assistance of their respective land and RMP implementation groups, local WGFD offices, and 

local sage-grouse working groups will evaluate the metrics with the Adaptive Management Working Group on an annual 

basis. The purpose of these strategies is to address localized greater sage-grouse population and habitat changes byproviding 

the framework in which management will change if monitoring identifies negative population and habitat anomalies in 

order to avoid crossing a hard trigger threshold.

Soft triggers require immediate monitoring and surveillance to determine causal factors and may require curtailment of 

activities in the short or long term, as allowed by law. The project level adaptive management strategies will identify 

appropriate responses where the project’s activities are identified as the causal factor. The management agency (BLM) and the 

Adaptive Management Work Group will implement an appropriate response strategy to address causal factors not attributable 

to a specific project or to make adjustments at a larger regional or statewide level.

Hard Trigger Response:

Hard triggers are indicators that management is not achieving desired conservation results. Hard triggers would be considered 

a catastrophic indicator that the species is not responding to conservation actions, or that a larger-scale impact or set of 

impacts is having a negative effect.

Within the range of normal population variables (5-year running mean of annual population counts), hard triggers shall 

be determined to take effect when two of the three metrics exceeds 60 percent of normal variability for the area under 

management in a single year, or when any of the three metrics exceeds 40 percent of normal variability for a 3 year time 

period within a 5-year range of analysis. A minimum of 3 consecutive years in a 5-year period is used to determine trends 

(i.e., years 1-2-3, years 2-3-4, years 3-4-5).

Worland Approved RMP 39

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Plan

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat September 2015
Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

Upon determination that a hard trigger has been tripped, the BLM will immediately defer issuance of discretionary 

authorizations for new actions within the Biologically Significant Unit for a period of 90 days. In addition, within 14 days 

of a determination that a hard trigger has been tripped, the Adaptive Management Work Group will convene to develop an 

interim response strategy and initiate an assessment to determine the causal factor or factors (hereafter called the causal 

factor assessment).

In making amendments to this plan, the BLM will coordinate with the USFWS as BLM continues to meet its objective of 

protecting, restoring, and enhancing Greater Sage-Grouse habitat by reducing, minimizing or eliminating threatsto that habitat.

The hard and soft trigger data will be analyzed as soon as it becomes available after the signing of the ROD and then 

at a minimum, analyzed annually thereafter.

4142 BR:11.1 Base future adjustments to the appropriate management level on monitoring information and multiple use considerations 

through development of and/or revisions to HMA Plans. Update HMA plans to include Greater Sage-Grouse objectives.

6000 LAND RESOURCES

Objective:

LR:1.5 Effects of infrastructure projects, including siting, will be minimized using the best available science, updated as 

monitoring information on current infrastructure projects becomes available.

6014 LR:1.1

LR:1.2

LR:1.5

The Secretary's policy is, generally, not to dispose of public lands. However, FLPMA Sections 201 & 202 state the 

Secretary shall 'prepare and maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public lands and their resource and other 

values...' and '...develop, maintain, and, when appropriate, revise land use plans which provide by tracts or areas for the use 

of the public lands', respectively. Therefore, as mandated by FLPMA Sections 201 & 202, the following tract(s) of public 

land have been found to meet criteria for disposal in FLPMA Section 203 (Sales) and/or FLPMA Section 206 (Exchanges) 

during this land use planning effort (Appendix I, Land Disposal and Acquisition (p. 379); Map 3-21. The identification of a 

public land tract as having met FLPMA criteria for disposal is NOT, in itself, a decision to dispose of public lands. The 

process for disposing of public lands via FLPMA Section 203 or Section 206 is a lengthy multi-decisional process requiring 

a comprehensive site-specific analysis, survey, and follow-on decisions prior to a final decision being made by the 

Department of Interior. 

Disposal can include none, some, or all of the mineral estate as allowed by 43 CFR 2720 and FLPMA Section 209(b)(1). A 

mineral potential report would determine if a surface estate disposal includes none, some, or all of the mineral estate. (Map 

3-21)

Lands classified as PHMAs and GHMAs for Greater Sage-Grouse will be retained in federal management unless: (1) the 

agency can demonstrate that disposal of the lands, including land exchanges, will provide a net conservation gain to the 

Greater Sage-Grouse or (2) the agency can demonstrate that the disposal of the lands, including land exchanges, will have no 

direct or indirect adverse impact on conservation of the Greater Sage-Grouse. Consider exceptions where there is mixed 

ownership. Allow land exchanges for additional or more contiguous federal ownership patterns within PHMAs.

For PHMAs with minority federal ownership, include an additional, effective mitigation agreement for any disposal of 

federal land. Consider pursuing a permanent conservation easement as a final preservation measure.

For lands in GHMAs that are identified for disposal, the BLM will only dispose of such lands consistent with the goals and 

objectives of this plan, including, but not limited to, the land use plan objective to maintain or increase Greater Sage-Grouse 

abundance and distribution.

Note: All land actions to acquire or dispose of lands would require a site specific analysis under NEPA.

40 Worland Approved RMPChapter 2 Approved Resource Management Planfor Greater Sage-Grouse HabitatGreater SageGoals, Objectives, and Management Decisions for 

-Grouse Habitat September 2015
Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

6028 LR:3.1 Designate ROW corridors as shown on Map 3-24. PHMAs are designated as avoidance areas for high voltage transmission 

line and pipeline ROWs. All authorizations in these areas must comply with the conservation measures outlined in this

Approved RMP, including the RDFs and avoidance criteria presented in Appendix C, Required Design Features and Best

Management Practices (p. 249). 

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

New Transmission Lines (greater than 115 kV):

Allow new transmission lines greater than 115 kV in PHMA only (1) when located within 0.5 miles or less of an existing 115 

kV or greater transmission lines constructed prior to 2008; or (2) in designated RMP corridors authorized for aboveground 

transmission lines. Do not count Transmission lines routed using one or more of the two criteria listed above against the 

DDCT 5 percent disturbance cap.

Consider new transmission lines greater than 115 kV proposed outside of these areas where it can be demonstrated that 

declines in Greater Sage-Grouse populations could be avoided through project design and/or mitigation. These projects will 

be subject to the density and disturbance restrictions for PHMAs.

Incorporate the Framework for Sage-grouse Impact Analysis for Interstate Transmission Lines (BLM 2012b) and other 

appropriate documentsinto the review of transmission line proposals, consistent with the three routing criteria described above.

For new projects within PHMAs that may require future utility lines, including distribution and transmission lines or pipelines, 

include the proposed utility lines in their DDCT as part of the proposed disturbance. Count lines permitted, but not located in 

the above mentioned routes or a designated corridor, toward the 5 percent disturbance calculation (line distance is equal to the

anticipated construction footprint or construction ROW width multiplied by length and includes all access roads, staging area, 

and other surface disturbance associated with construction outside of the construction ROW).

New Electric Distribution Lines (less than 115 kV):

Require burial of new electric distribution lines where economically feasible. If not economically feasible, distribution lines 

may be authorized when effectively designed/mitigated to protect Greater Sage-Grouse and when the authorized officer 

determines that overhead installation is the action alternative with the fewest adverse impacts while still meeting the project 

need. Consider agricultural and residential linesto be adequately mitigated for Greater Sage-Grouse if constructed at least 0.6 

mile from the lek perimeter with appropriate timing constraints and constructed to the latest APLIC standards. These ROW 

authorizations will be subject to approval by the State Director.

Worland Approved RMP 41

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Plan

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat September 2015
Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

Pipelines:

Allow new pipelines through PHMAs: (1) within an RMP corridor currently authorized for that use or designated through 

future RMP amendments; or (2) constructed in or adjacent to existing utilities (buried and aboveground) or roads. Pipelines 

constructed in RMP corridors or adjacent to existing utilities or roads will require completion of a DDCT analysis for baseline 

data collection, but the project is not required to meet the threshold of 5 percent. However, within 6 months of the completion 

of construction, the project proponent will provide the authorized officer with as-built drawings so that the total disturbance 

within PHMAs can be calculated annually.

6029 LR:3.1 Manage 1,767,274 acres as ROW avoidance areas (Map 3-24).

Manage PHMAs as ROW avoidance areas for new ROW or SUA permits (799,391 acres). Within PHMAs where new 

ROWs/SUAs are necessary, locate new ROWs/SUAs within designated RMP corridors or adjacent to existing ROWs/SUAs 

where technically feasible. Subject to valid existing rights, including non-federal land inholdings, locate new, required 

ROWs/SUAs adjacent to existing ROWs/SUAs or where impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse are minimized.

Work with proponents to design ROW applications to protect Greater Sage-Grouse.

6040 LR:6.3 Allow temporary closures to motorized vehicle use in areas that pose public health and safety risks, and/or where resource 

damage is imminent. In PHMAs and GHMAs, temporary closures will be considered in accordance with 43 CFR subpart 

8364 (Closures and Restrictions); 43 CFR subpart 8351 (Designated National Area); 43 CFR subpart 6302 (Use of Wilderness 

Areas, Prohibited Acts, and Penalties); 43 CFR subpart 8341 (Conditions of Use).

Temporary closure or restriction orders under these authorities are enacted at the discretion of the authorized officer to resolve 

management conflicts and protect persons, property, and public lands and resources. Where an authorized officer determines 

that off-highway vehicles are causing or will cause considerable adverse effects upon soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife 

habitat, cultural resources, historical resources, threatened or endangered species, wilderness suitability, other authorized uses, 

or other resources, the affected areas shall be immediately closed to the type(s) of vehicle causing the adverse effect until the 

adverse effects are eliminated and measures implemented to prevent recurrence. (43 CFR 8341.2) A closure or restriction 

order should be considered only after other management strategies and alternatives have been explored. The duration of 

temporary closure or restriction orders should be limited to 24 months or less; however, certain situations may require longer 

closures and/or iterative temporary closures. This may include closure of routes or areas.

6054 LR:7.4-7.7 

LR:8

Design recreational sites, recreation facility development, and recreational access to avoid riparian habitat areas or develop 

and manage them in a manner that minimizes effects on riparian habitats. Construction of recreation facilities within PHMA 

must conform with the avoidance and minimization measures of this plan. If it is determined that these conservation measures 

are inadequate for the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse, the BLM will require and ensure compensatory mitigation that 

provides a net conservation gain to the species.

42 Worland Approved RMPChapter 2 Approved Resource Management Planfor Greater Sage-Grouse HabitatGreater SageGoals, Objectives, and Management Decisions for 

-Grouse Habitat September 2015
Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

6198 LR:10.1 

LR:10.3

In cooperation, consultation, and coordination with permittees/lessees, cooperators, and interested public, develop and 

implement appropriate livestock grazing management actions to enhance land health, improve forage for livestock, and meet 

other multiple use objectives by using the Wyoming Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management, other appropriate BMPs 

(see Appendix C, Required Design Features and Best Management Practices (p. 249)), and development of appropriate range 

improvements. The BLM will prioritize (1) the review of grazing permits/leases, in particular to determine if modification

is necessary prior to renewal, and (2) the processing of grazing permits/leases in PHMAs. In setting workload priorities, 

precedence will be given to existing permits/leases in areas not meeting Land Health Standards, with focus on allotments 

containing riparian areas or wet meadows. The BLM may use other criteria for prioritization to respond to urgent natural 

resource concerns (e.g., wildfire) and legal obligations.

The BLM will collaborate with appropriate federal agencies, and the State of Wyoming as contemplated under EO 2013–3 

(Wyoming Office of the Governor 2013), to 1) develop appropriate conservation objectives; (2) defined a framework for 

evaluating situations where Greater Sage-Grouse conservation objectives are not being achieved on federal land, to determine 

if a causal relationship exists between improper grazing (by wildlife or wild horses or livestock) and Greater Sage-Grouse 

conservation objectives; and 3) identify appropriate site-specific actions to achieve Greater Sage-Grouse conservation 

objectives within the framework.

6202 LR:10.1 Utilize a rangeland health assessment, resource monitoring, or analysis to determine if livestock grazing adjustments 

in amounts, kinds, or season are necessary. The NEPA analysis for renewals and modifications of livestock grazing

permits/leases that include lands within PHMAs will include specific management thresholds based on Greater Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Objectives Table (Table 2.7, “Greater Sage-Grouse Seasonal Habitat Objectives” (p. 22)) and Land Health Standards 

(43 CFR 4180.2) and one or more defined responses that will allow the authorizing officer to make adjustments to livestock 

grazing that have already been subjected to NEPA analysis. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Objectives Table (Table 2.7,

“Greater Sage-Grouse Seasonal Habitat Objectives” (p. 22)), Land Health Standards (43 CFR 4180.2) and ecological

site potential, and one or more defined responses that will allow the authorizing officer to make adjustments to livestock 

grazing that have already been subjected to NEPA analysis.

6214 LR:10.1 Allotments within PHMAs, focusing on those containing riparian areas, including wet meadows, will be prioritized for 

field checks to help ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the grazing permits. Field checks could include 

monitoring for actual use, utilization, and use supervision.

Worland Approved RMP 43

Chapter 2 Approved Resource Management Plan

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions

for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat September 2015
IM Instruction Memorandum 

kV Kilovolt

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NSO No Surface Occupancy

OHV Off-highway vehicle

PHMA Priority Habitat Management Area 

RAATS Reduced Agent-Area Treatments 

RMP Resource Management Plan

ROW Rights-of-way

SUA Surface Use Agreement

U.S.C. United States Code

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department WO 

Washington Office

APD Application for Permit to Drill

APLIC Avian Powerline Interaction Committee 

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practice 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COT Conservation Objectives Team

dBA Decibels with an A-weighted scale

DDCT Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool 

EO Executive Order

ESD Ecological Site Description

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

FMP Fire Management Plan

FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class 

GHMA General Habitat Management Area 

HMA Herd Management Area

44 Worland Approved RMPChapter 2 Approved Resource Management Planfor Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat September 2015
Chapter 3. Approved Resource Management 

Plan
This page intentionally 

left blank
Worland Approved RMP 47

3.1. Approved Resource Management Plan Instructions

The decisions in this Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) will guide the Bureau of Land 

Management’s (BLM’s) management of the planning area; however, implementation of certain 

decisions will require site-specific National Environmental Policy Act analysis. For instance, 

although the Approved RMP may identify an area as open for rights-of-way (ROW) development, 

subsequent site-specific analysis may lead the BLM to deny authorization if development in 

that particular location could have adverse impacts to other values. Early consultation with the 

BLM by project proponents will help to identify potential conflicts in advance, increasing the 

efficiency of the approval process. Terminology that is specific to this RMP, defined by BLM 

policy, or that may be unfamiliar to the general public (e.g., ROW avoidance and exclusion) 

are defined in the Glossary (p. 161). 

3.2. Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions

Table 3.1, “0000 COMMON TO ALL ” (p. 49) through Table 3.31, “8000 SOCIOECONOMIC

RESOURCES (SR) – Health and Safety” (p. 138) identify the goals, objectives, and management 

decisions according to the following resource topics: 

0000. Common to All 

1000. Physical Resources (PR) – Air Quality, Soil, Water, and Cave and Karst Resources

2000. Mineral Resources (MR) – Locatable, Leasable, and Salable Minerals

3000. Fire and Fuels Management (FM) 

4000. Biological Resources (BR) – Vegetation, Invasive Species and Pest Management, Fish 

and Wildlife, Special Status Species, and Wild Horses 

5000. Heritage and Visual Resources (HR) – Cultural, Paleontological, and Visual 

6000. Land Resources (LR) – Lands and Realty, Renewable Energy, Rights-of-Way and 

Corridors, Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management, Recreation, Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics, and Livestock Grazing Management

7000. Special Designations (SD) – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, National Back 

Country Byways, Historic Trails, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Wilderness Study Areas 

8000. Socioeconomic Resources (SR) – Social and Economic and Health and Safety 

This numbering system and the abbreviations for each of the eight resource topics serve 

to organize Table 3.1, “0000 COMMON TO ALL ” (p. 49) through Table 3.31, “8000

SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES (SR) – Health and Safety” (p. 138). Goals and objectives 

describe the desired outcomes for each resource topic. Management decisions are intended to 

achieve these goals and objectives.

While the decisions in the Approved RMP are organized by the eight resource topics listed above, 

decisions for resources and resource uses are interconnected and a comprehensive review of 

decisions in all eight resource topics is required to ensure a full understanding of the Approved 

RMP. The reader may need to reference multiple sections to understand the decisions as a whole. 

For example, the oil and gas section states the acres subject to various constraints (Decisions 2018 

through 2022). However, the reason for those constraints is generally based on other programs, 

such as wildlife or water quality.

The emphasis on Greater Sage-Grouse following the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listing 

decision is reflected in these decisions. However, Greater Sage-Grouse conservation measures 

benefit many other wildlife species and resources. Similarly, management to protect one resource,

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan

September 2015 Approved Resource Management PlanInstructions
48 Worland ApprovedRMP

such as limiting surface disturbance to protect visual resources, may also benefit other resources 

in the area, such as wildlife. Please refer to the Proposed RMP and Final EIS for additional 

information on how management actions affect resources and resource uses across the larger 

Bighorn Basin Planning Area.

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.1. 0000 COMMON TO ALL

0000 COMMON TO ALL

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

0001 PR:3.1 Surface-disturbing activities are subject to the Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive

MR:1.1

MR:1.3

Activities, the Wyoming BLM Reclamation Policy, and the Wyoming DEQ-WQD’s Storm Water Permitting Program.

MR:3.1

0002 SD:1 The BLM may pursue a withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws for locatable minerals within ACECs,

SD:5.1 recommended WSR suitable waterway segments, and special status species habitat on a case-by-case basis in compliance

BR:7.1 with laws, regulations, and policy.

BR:7.6

BR:8.2

BR:9.2

BR:9.2

0003 MR:1.2 Utilize recommendations found in WGFD documents Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources

MR:1.2 within Crucial and Important Wildlife Habitats (WGFD 2010a), Wildlife Protection Recommendations for Wind Energy

MR:2 Development in Wyoming (WGFD 2010b), and similar documents updated over time where determined applicable and

BR:6 consistent with valid existing rights.

BR:6.1

BR:7

LR:2.1

LR:3.1

Worland Approved RMP 49

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.2. 1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – Air Quality

1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – Air Quality

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL PR:1 Minimize the impact of management actions in the planning area on air quality by complying with all 

applicable air quality laws, rules, and regulations.

Objectives:

PR:1.1 Maintain concentrations of criteria pollutants in compliance with applicable state and federal Ambient Air Quality 

Standards within the scope of BLM’s authority.

PR:1.2 Maintain concentrations of PSD pollutants associated with management actions in compliance with the applicable 

increment.

GOAL PR:2 Improve air quality in the planning area as practicable.

Objectives:

PR:2.1 Reduce visibility-impairing pollutants in accordance with the reasonable progress goals and time-frames established 

within the State of Wyoming’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan.

PR:2.2 Reduce atmospheric deposition pollutants to levels below generally accepted levels of concern and levels of 

acceptable change.

1001 PR:1 Manage prescribed burns to comply with all applicable air quality laws, rules, and regulations, including Wyoming DEQ Air 

Quality District smoke-management rules and regulations.

1002 PR:1 Define a criteria pollutant and air quality related values monitoring strategy and cooperatively establish a monitoring 

network by creating a method for siting air quality monitors in order to provide additional data for describing background 

concentrations.

1003 PR:1 

PR:2

Provide for compliance with applicable air quality standards in the planning area and work cooperatively to encourage 

industry and other permittees to adopt measures to reduce emissions.

1004 PR:1.1 Enhance the existing cooperative process that shares air quality information with agencies, stakeholders, and the public.

50 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – Air Quality

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

1005 PR:1.1 The State of Wyoming has primary responsibility (primacy) for administering and enforcing air quality standards and 

regulations within the state.

BLM actions will conform with Wyoming DEQ Air Quality Standards and Regulations through application of BMPs and 

other measures consistent with resource goals and objectives.

1006 PR:1 

PR:2

Characterize the condition of Class I areas within and adjacent to the planning area (Table 3-4 in the Proposed RMP and 

Final EIS), with stakeholders. Appendix M, Bighorn Basin Air Resource Management Plan (p. 547) describes the details of 

this characterization.

The proponent of a project will demonstrate regard for air resources and will demonstrate consideration of measures to 

reduce emissions to meet air quality goals and objectives and Decision 1003.

The BLM will require additional air emission control measures and strategies within its regulatory authority and in 

consultation with stakeholders if proposed or committed measures are insufficient to achieve air quality goals and objectives.

Perform quantitative air quality analyses (i.e., modeling) for project specific developments as determined on a case-by-case 

basis in consultation with state, federal, and tribal entities to determine the potential impacts of proposed air emissions.

Modeling may be performed to determine the effectiveness of mitigation strategies.

Perform a quantitative air quality analysis to ensure protection of air quality when the sum of project specific developments 

in the planning area approaches a level of concern as determined in consultation with state, federal, and tribal entities.

The BLM may facilitate discussions with stakeholders to implement mitigation measures beyond BLM’s authority, to 

reduce emissions from current levels in the planning area.

Worland Approved RMP 51

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.3. 1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – Soil 

1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – Soil

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL PR:3 Maintain or improve soil health (e.g., chemical, physical, and biotic properties) while focusing on making 

significant progress toward meeting the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (BLM 1997).

Objective:

PR:3.1 Apply guidelines and appropriate measures to all management actions (including reclamation) affecting soil health to 

decrease erosion and sedimentation, to achieve and maintain stability, and to support the hydrologic cycle by providing for 

water capture, storage, and release.

1007 PR:3.1 Use BMPs to reduce runoff, soil erosion, and sediment yield, and to retain water on the landscape.

1008 PR:3.1 Develop appropriate mitigation for surface-disturbing and disruptive activities associated with wildlife and fish management 

through use of the mitigation guidelines described in Appendix F, Wyoming Bureau of Land Management Mitigation

Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities (p. 349).

1009 PR:3.1 Maintain existing watershed improvement projects.

1010 PR:3.1 Allow surface-disturbing activities on fragile soils, biological crusts, soils with low reclamation potential, and soils with 

highly erosive characteristics on a case-by-case basis.

1011 PR:3.1 Construct water flow, sediment control, and watershed stabilization projects in partnership with local, state, and federal 

programs.

1012 PR:3.1 Prioritize and reseed portions of watersheds as opportunities arise.

1013 PR:3.1 Stabilize existing watershed improvement projects to prevent the release of stored sediment if projects are no longer needed 

to meet resource objectives.

1014 PR:3.1 Analyze all surface-disturbing activities for suitability and impacts.

1015 PR:3.1 Assess erosion and soil stability during land health evaluations. Incorporate erosion rates and soil stability into soil survey 

efforts as soil survey funds become available.

1016 PR:3.1 Allow seeding of areas disturbed by surface-disturbing activities (as part of interim and final reclamation) and areas not 

meeting resource objectives using approved BLM seed mixtures.

1017 PR:3.1 In disturbed areas, reestablish healthy native or desired plant communities based on pre-disturbance/desired plant species 

composition.

1018 PR:3.1 When appropriate for the site and situation, require temporary protective surface treatments such as weed-free mulch, 

matting, netting, or tackifiers to facilitate the reclamation of areas affected by authorized or unauthorized surface-disturbing 

activities. If needed, allow, the use of sterile, weed-free temporary protective surface treatments to facilitate stabilization 

following wildfires.

52 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – Soil

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

1019 PR:3.1 Interim and final reclamation will begin at the earliest feasible time.

Successful final reclamation of the desired vegetative cover will be considered achieved if conditions are equal to or better 

than pre-disturbance site condition.

Require reclamation in compliance with BLM policy, including Wyoming BLM Reclamation Policy and similar guidance 

updated over time.

1020 PR:3.1 Reclamation plans, stipulations, and/or mitigation and monitoring measures are required prior to approval of all authorized 

surface-disturbing activities.

Develop specific objectives and timeframes for reclamation plans in coordination with stakeholders.

1021 PR:3.1 In consultation with stakeholders and subject to site‐specific NEPA actions, close and reclaim unnecessary and/or heavily 

eroded roads and trails if other stable roads and trails are available on a priority basis.

Stabilize or relocate heavily eroded or washed out roads and trails if other stable roads and trails are unavailable on a 

priority basis.

1022 PR:3.1 Salvage and segregate topsoil for all applicable surface-disturbing activities. Use salvaged topsoil in the reclamation of 

the associated surface disturbance.

1023 PR:3 

PR:3.1

Channel crossings and surface disturbance are subject to the monitoring and reporting requirements of Reclamation 

Requirement 10 of the Wyoming Reclamation Policy, where applicable, and similar guidance updated over time.

Worland Approved RMP 53

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.4. 1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – Water

1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – Water

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL PR:4 Maintain the quality of surface water and groundwater resources, maintain compliance with applicable federal 

and state water quality standards, and improve water quality where practical within the scope of the BLM’s authority.

Objectives:

PR:4.1 Manage water resources to meet or achieve the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (BLM 1997).

PR:4.2 Attain, maintain, or enhance the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of surface water (Map 3-1).

PR:4.3 Manage watersheds to prevent accelerated channel erosion and undesirable adjustments in channel geometry (e.g., 

width-depth ratio, sinuosity, bank stability, gradient) of stream channels within the authority of the BLM.

PR:4.4 Manage watersheds to restore stream channels that have been degraded within the authority of the BLM.

PR:4.5 Manage watersheds to achieve and maintain erosional stability and to support the hydrologic cycle and aquifer 

recharge.

PR:4.6 Manage pollutants on federal lands to minimize threats to drinking water sources.

PR:4.7 Manage produced water to meet other resource goals and objectives.

GOAL PR:5 Within the scope of BLM’s authority, provide for the availability of water to support uses on public lands.

Objective:

PR:5.1 Rehabilitate, maintain, acquire, develop, or reclaim water supply sources to meet other resource goals and objectives 

within the scope of BLM’s authority.

1024 PR:4 Water quality standards, enforcement, and remediation are the primacy of and administered by the State of Wyoming.

BLM actions will conform with Wyoming DEQ-WQD regulations and requirements through application of BMPs and other 

measures consistent with resource goals and objectives. Reporting of leaks and spills to the Wyoming DEQ and/or Wyoming 

Oil and Gas Conservation Commission will be required, as appropriate.

1025 PR:5.1 File for water rights to water projects on BLM-administered land as determined appropriate by the BLM.

1026 PR:4.2

PR:4.6

Avoid aerial application of fire suppressant chemicals within 300 feet of perennial waters. Consider ground-based application 

on a case-by-case basis.

1027 PR:4.5 Protect watershed resources through the application of watershed conservation practices and BMPs.

1028 PR:4.6 In cooperation with stakeholders and within BLM’s authority, protect groundwater during BLM activities and permitted 

actions through appropriate measures. These measures may be determined through methods such as predictive modeling, the 

results of monitoring, or project-specific analysis.

54 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – Water

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

1029 PR:4.2 

PR:4.5-4.7

Apply BMPs for oil and gas and water well drilling operations, mining, and other activities, which could affect groundwater 

resources. For all oil and gas wells, a groundwater monitoring program will be established in accordance with state 

requirements.

1030 PR:4.2 

PR:4.5-4.7

Conduct water quality monitoring following the application of pesticides when treatments are conducted adjacent to 

streams within municipal watersheds, fish hatchery supply watersheds, or adjacent to major fish-bearing streams on a 

case-by-case basis.

1031 PR:4.2

PR:4.3

PR:4.5

Control water runoff from disturbed or developed sites and control soil erosion to appropriate rates for natural conditions 

through the Wyoming Storm Water Discharge Program using appropriate BMPs and technologies.

1032 PR:4.3-4.5 Participate in the development and implementation of local watershed management plans and/or TMDLs with interested 

stakeholders and Wyoming DEQ. Apply BMPs as appropriate from the E. coli Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Big 

Horn River Watershed (Wyoming DEQ 2013), for the development and implementation of authorized activities on BLM 

lands in the Big Horn watershed.

1033 PR:4.5 Implement BMPs to protect water quantity and water quality within cave and karst areas exhibiting unique underground 

drainage characteristics.

1034 PR:4.1

PR:4.2

PR:4.7

PR:5.1

Acquire abandoned mineral wells that produce water as determined appropriate by BLM to meet other resource objectives.

1035 PR:4.5 Cooperate with stakeholders to plug unneeded abandoned water wells to prevent groundwater contamination and with the 

State Engineers Office regulations (Part III) for proper water well abandonment.

1036 PR:4.6 Cooperate with EPA, the State of Wyoming, and local governments in the development and implementation of source water 

and wellhead protection plans to protect drinking water sources.

1037 PR:4.1-4.4 

PR:4.6

Develop watershed improvement practices in cooperation with local governments to reduce sediment loading in stream and 

river systems as well as lakes and reservoirs. Once developed, include in all activity plans and permitted activities. Apply 

BMPs and work in cooperation with stakeholders on activity plans and other authorized activities.

1038 PR:4.2

PR:4.3

In cooperation with other stakeholders, encourage the maintenance of natural flow regimes in priority streams supporting 

fisheries in compliance with Wyoming water laws.

1039 PR:4.1-4.3 Consider fencing of springs, wetlands, reservoirs, and riparian areas, and provide offsite water when necessary to meet 

resources objectives.

1040 PR:4.3

PR:4.4

Cooperate with adjacent landowners, managers, and the Wyoming DEQ to address waterbodies not meeting state water 

quality standards.

Prioritize and implement BMPs to address causal factors related to the impairment of water quality of waters where the 

evidence indicates that failure to meet such standards is the result of BLM management actions or permitted activities.

Worland Approved RMP 55

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – Water

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

1041 PR:4.1

PR:4.2

PR:4.

PR:4.7

Authorize new activities resulting in the surface discharge of produced water where compatible with other resource 

objectives and in consultation with stakeholders.

Require water monitoring plans for new activities resulting in surface discharges of water to track changes in receiving 

channels and to minimize adverse impacts to watershed health. If adverse impacts to receiving channels or watershed 

health occur, require development and implementation of water management plans which include reclamation strategies 

and mitigation to address impacts.

Avoid or mitigate BLM-authorized activities and infrastructure such as unlined impoundment ponds/pits, reserve pits, and 

evaporation ponds that could result in the contamination of sensitive water resources, including Source Water Protection 

Areas identified in Wellhead or Source Water Protection Plans approved local governing bodies and “High” and “Moderately 

High” sensitivity aquifer systems identified through the use of the Wyoming Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment 

Handbook or similar document as updated over time, on a case-by-case basis. BMPs appropriate for consideration to mitigate 

potential water quality impacts are listed in Appendix C, Required Design Features and Best Management Practices (p. 249).

1042 PR:4.6 Avoid activities that could negatively affect water resources within a 1⁄4 mile area around public water supply wells, and an 

area including 1⁄4 mile on both sides of a river or stream, for 10 miles upstream of the public water supply intake, within the 

watershed. For lakes and reservoirs, this would include a 1⁄4 mile area around the waterbody. For unavoidable activities in 

these areas, site specific mitigation will be included to minimize risk of adverse impacts.

56 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.5. 1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – Cave and Karst Resources

1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – Cave and Karst Resources

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL PR:6 Conserve significant cave and karst resources and enhance educational and scientific research opportunities 

relative to cave and karst resources in the planning area.

Objectives:

PR:6.1 Manage significant cave resources as mandated by the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988.

PR:6.2 Foster public awareness, public use, and provide opportunities for cave and karst research.

1043 PR:6.1 Cave and karst areas (6,627 acres) are closed to mineral materials disposal, withdrawn from locatable entry, and closed to 

mineral leasing. These same restrictions apply to important caves or cave passages and karst resources as they are identified.

1044 PR:6.1 Manage cave and karst areas as ROW avoidance areas.

1045 PR:6.1 Motorized vehicle use is limited to designated roads and trails in areas over important caves or cave passages.

1046 PR:6.2 Manage recreational use of caves under a cave management plan. Goals of the plan will include:

● Promoting the significance and importance of cave resources through interpretive and educative programs and techniques.

● Protecting and maintaining cave resources, including wildlife species and habitat in and around caves by interpreting, 

restricting, and/or prohibiting nonconforming uses.

● Enhancing user experiences and opportunities by managing use at levels compatible with resource carrying capacity 

and protection.

1047 PR:6.2 For safety reasons, group sizes must be at least three people in all caves where use is allowed.

1048 PR:6.1 Accomplish cave resource protection and provide for user safety with controls such as timing of use to avoid crowding and 

closing caves to use during periods of high water runoff. Close cave and karst areas during all critical periods for bats and 

when user safety is at risk due to high water, radon, H2S, and fire.

1049 PR:6.2 Manage cave and karst areas consistent with resource objectives.

1050 PR:6.2 Allow scientific research of cave and karst areas on a case-by-case basis.

1051 PR:6.2 Manage caves to protect bats from White Nose Syndrome by requiring decontamination protocol under BLM IM 2010-181 

or the National White Nose Syndrome protocol.

Worland Approved RMP 57

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.6. 2000 MINERAL RESOURCES (MR) 

2000 MINERAL RESOURCES (MR)

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL MR:1 Provide opportunities for mineral extraction and energy exploration and development to meet national and 

local needs, while avoiding or mitigating impacts on other resources.

Objectives:

MR:1.1 Provide opportunities to explore for, sell and/or permit, and develop leasable, salable, and locatable mineral 

resources.

MR:1.2 Encourage sound, balanced exploration and development of mineral resources in the planning area.

MR:1.3 Provide opportunities for exploring, leasing, and developing conventional and unconventional oil and gas, CBNG, 

coal, sodium, phosphate, and other leasable minerals including, but not limited to, oil shale and geothermal resources.

GOAL MR:2 Manage leasable fluid mineral resources (oil, gas, CBNG, geothermal) in the planning area to meet the 

Nation’s energy needs, without compromising long-term health and diversity of public lands and resources.

Objectives:

MR:2.1 Provide opportunities to explore and develop federal oil and gas resources and other leasable minerals.

MR:2.2 Provide opportunities for collection of subsurface geological (geophysical) data to aid in the exploration of oil 

and gas resources in areas open to leasing.

MR:2.3 Priority will be given to leasing and development of fluid mineral resources, including geothermal, outside of 

PHMA and GHMA. When analyzing leasing and authorizing development of fluid mineral resources, including geothermal, 

in PHMA and GHMA, and subject to applicable stipulations for the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse, priority will

be given to development in non-habitat areas first and then in the least suitable habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse. The 

implementation of these priorities will be subject to valid existing rights and any applicable law or regulation, including, but 

not limited to, 30 U.S.C. 226(p) and 43 CFR 3162.3-1(h).

MR:2.4 Where a proposed fluid mineral development project on an existing lease could adversely affect Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations or habitat, the BLM will work with the lessees, operators, or other project proponents to avoid, reduce, and 

mitigate adverse impacts to the extent compatible with lessees' rights to drill and produce fluid mineral resources. The BLM 

will work with the lessee, operator, or project proponent in developing an APD for the lease to avoid and minimize impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse or its habitat and will ensure that the best information about the Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat 

informs and helps to guide development of such federal leases.

58 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
2000 MINERAL RESOURCES (MR)

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL MR:3 Manage solid leasable mineral resources (coal, oil shale, tar sands, phosphate, sodium, etc.) to help meet 

local and regional needs, while avoiding or mitigating effects on other resources.

Objective:

MR:3.1 Provide opportunities for exploration, leasing, and development of solid leasable minerals consistent with goals and 

objectives of other natural and cultural resources and values.

GOAL MR:4 Manage salable mineral materials to meet local and regional needs, while avoiding or mitigating effects 

on other resources.

Objectives:

MR:4.1 Anticipate need and identify areas suitable for ongoing and future mineral materials disposals to meet needs.

MR:4.2 Provide opportunities for exploration and development of salable minerals in suitable locations while avoiding or 

mitigating effects to other resources.

GOAL MR:5 Manage locatable minerals activities on lands open to mineral entry, while preventing unnecessary and 

undue degradation of public lands as defined in 43 CFR 3809.5, and while avoiding or mitigating effects of exploration 

and production on other resources.

Objective:

MR:5.1 Provide opportunities for exploration and development of locatable minerals while reducing and mitigating effects 

of mining on other natural resources.

GOAL MR:6 Provide protections for resource values in areas of conflict with mineral exploration and development.

Objectives: 

MR:6.1 Manage oil and gas operations in the Master Leasing Plan areas to prevent degradation of resources.

MR:6.2 Minimize, avoid, and mitigate impacts of environmental risks on fish and wildlife.

MR:6.3 Manage the direct indirect and cumulative impacts so as to maintain a minimal level of user conflict.

MR:6.4 Manage habitat to conserve, recover, and maintain fish and wildlife consistent with appropriate local, state, and 

federal management plans.

MR:6.5 Utilize a comprehensive approach to travel planning and management to sustain and enhance use.

MR:6.6 Apply guidelines and appropriate measures to all management actions (including reclamation) affecting soil health 

to decrease erosion and sedimentation, to achieve and maintain stability, and to support the hydrologic cycle by providing for 

water capture, storage, and release.

Worland Approved RMP 59

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
2000 MINERAL RESOURCES (MR)

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

2001 MR:1

MR:6.1

MR:6.2

MR:6.4

Design, construct, and operate evaporation, reserve, work over, and production pits with protective features to reduce 

mortality livestock and wildlife due to drowning or entrapment as addressed in BLM Wyoming’s Management of Oil and 

Gas Exploration and Production Pits (BLM 2011c). Do not allow infrastructure (such as unlined impoundment ponds/pits, 

reserve pits, evaporation ponds, and other uses) that could impact water resources and cause contamination in order to protect 

sensitive water resources (within 500 feet of riparian areas and surface waters, Source Water Protection Areas identified

in Wellhead or Source Water Protection Plans approved by the local governing body, and "High" and "Moderately High" 

sensitivity aquifer systems identified through the use of the Wyoming Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment Handbook or 

similar document as updated over time), unless anticipated impacts are mitigated (Appendix C, Required Design Features

and Best Management Practices (p. 249)).

Locatable Minerals

2002 MR:1.1

MR:5.1

Lands not formally withdrawn or segregated from mineral entry are available for mineral entry for bentonite (Map 3-2), 

gypsum (Map 3-3), and other locatable minerals.

2003 MR:5.1 2,661,343 acres are available for locatable mineral entry in the planning area.

Pursue a withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws for locatable minerals for 25,348 acres in the planning 

area (Map 3-4).

Leasable Minerals – Coal

2004 MR:1.1

MR:1.3

MR:3.1

Allow coal exploration on lands through the coal exploration license process.

2005 MR:1.1

MR:1.3

MR:3.1

Consider interest in exploration for, or leasing of, federal coal (Map 3-5), if any on a case-by-case basis. Allow coal 

exploration licenses subject to the regulations of 43 CFR 3410, and subject to guidance mitigating for surface‐disturbing 

activities in the Wyoming BLM Standard Oil and Gas‐Lease Stipulations (Appendix B, Oil and Gas Lease Notices and Lease

Stipulations, including Exception, Modification, and Waiver Criteria (p. 211)). Before issuing a coal exploration license, 

require the authorized officer to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, if necessary, of the 

potential effects of the proposed exploration on the natural and socio-economic environment of the affected area.

If an application for a federal coal lease is received, conduct an appropriate land use and environmental analysis, including

the coal screening process, to determine whether the area(s) proposed for leasing is (are) acceptable for coal development 

and leasing (as per 43 CFR 3425). If public lands are determined to be acceptable for further consideration for coal 

leasing, amend the land use plan as necessary. Only accept federal coal lease applications on those federal coal lands with 

development potential identified as suitable for further leasing consideration, after application of the coal screens and 

unsuitability criteria. At the time an application for a new coal lease or lease modification is submitted to the BLM, the BLM 

will determine whether the lease application area is "unsuitable" for all or certain coal mining methods pursuant to 43 CFR 

3461.5. PHMA is essential habitat for maintaining Greater Sage-Grouse for purposes of the suitability criteria set forth at

43 CFR 3461.5(o)(1). The BLM will also consider that USFWS has found “the core area strategy...if implemented by all 

landowners via regulatory mechanisms, would provide adequate protection for sage-grouse and their habitats in the state” 

when considering leasing coal in PHMA under the criteria set for at 43 CFR 3461.5(o)(1) (USFWS 2010).

60 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
2000 MINERAL RESOURCES (MR)

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

2006 MR:1.1

MR:1.3

MR:3.1

Continue all coal and phosphate withdrawals and classifications unless no longer needed and do not return the lands involved 

to operation of the mining laws.

Leasable Minerals – Geothermal Resources

2007 MR:1.1

MR:1.3 

MR:2

Unless otherwise noted, BLM-administered land in the planning area that is open to oil and gas leasing is open to geothermal 

leasing, subject to appropriate mitigation developed through use of the mitigation guidelines described in Appendix F,

Wyoming Bureau of Land Management Mitigation Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities (p. 349). 

Unless otherwise noted, those lands identified as closed to oil and gas leasing are closed to geothermal leasing.

2008 MR:2 Unless otherwise noted, the exploration and development of geothermal resources are subject to restrictions on 

surface-disturbing activities as they are applied to oil and gas exploration and development activities.

2009 MR:5.1 BLM-administered land or federal mineral estate within 5 miles of Hot Springs State Park in Thermopolis is closed to 

geothermal leasing.

2010 MR:5.1 A total of 175,872 acres are closed to geothermal leasing (Map 3-6).

A total of 2,484,878 acres are open to geothermal leasing.

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas/CBNG Exploration and Development

2011 MR:1 

MR:2

Protect important resources, including in areas closed to leasing on existing leases (Map 3-7) to the extent this restriction does 

not violate the leaseholder/operator lease rights, by applying an NSO restriction and prohibiting surface-disturbing activities.

In areas identified as available for leasing, additional planning, analysis, and decision making may be necessary prior to 

lease issuance under the following criteria: 1) when oil and gas development is resulting in unacceptable multiple-use or 

natural/cultural resources conflicts, 2) new information evidences increased oil and gas development densities or surface 

disturbance, or 3) at the discretion of the Field Manager, District Manager, or State Director. Areas closed for oil and gas 

leasing may be leased with an NSO stipulation to deal with drainage of these resources from federal mineral estate.

2012 MR:2.1

MR:2.3

MR:2.4

Determine the routing of access roads and location of well pads after considering the views of the surface owner on 

split-estate lands (private surface-federal minerals/oil and gas), where possible.

Where the federal government owns the mineral estate, and the surface is in non-federal ownership, apply the same 

stipulations, COAs, and/or conservation measures and RDFs applied if the mineral estate is developed on BLM-administered 

lands in that management area, to the maximum extent permissible under existing authorities, and in coordination with

the landowner.

Where the federal government owns the surface and the mineral estate is in non-federal ownership, apply appropriate surface 

use COAs, stipulations, and mineral RDFs through ROW grants or other surface management instruments, to the maximum 

extent permissible under existing authorities, in coordination with the mineral estate owner/lessee.

2013 MR:1.1

MR:1.3

MR:2.1

MR:2.3

Process oil and gas lease applications on a case-by-case basis. Ensure that leasing activities in PHMAs comply with Greater 

Sage-Grouse RMP decisions and remain in compliance with laws, regulations, and policy.

Worland Approved RMP 61

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
2000 MINERAL RESOURCES (MR)

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

2014 MR:1.1

MR:1.3

MR:2.1

MR:2.3

MR:2.4

Unless otherwise noted, areas that are open to oil and gas leasing are open to geophysical exploration subject to appropriate

mitigation developed through use of the mitigation guidelines described in Appendix F, Wyoming Bureau of Land

Management Mitigation Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities (p. 349). Areas closed to oil and gas 

leasing are closed to geophysical exploration. However, geophysical exploration may be permitted on a case-by-case basis so 

long as the resource goals and objectives under which the area was closed are not compromised.

Geophysical exploration projects that are designed to minimize habitat fragmentation within PHMAs would be allowed, 

except where prohibited or restricted by existing land use plan decisions, in conformance with timing and distances 

Management Decisions.

2015 MR:1.1

MR:1.3

MR:2.1

MR:2.3

MR:2.4

In cases where federal oil and gas leases are or have been issued without stipulated restrictions or requirements that are later 

found to be necessary, or with stipulated restrictions or requirements later found to be insufficient, consider their inclusion 

before approving subsequent exploration and development activities. Include these restrictions or requirements only as 

reasonable measures or as conditions of approval in authorizing APDs or Master Development Plans.

Conversely, in cases where leases are or have been issued with stipulated restrictions or requirements that are later found 

to be excessive or unnecessary, the stipulated restrictions or requirements may be appropriately modified, excepted or 

waived in authorizing actions. Both the application of reasonable measures or COAs and the modification, exception, or 

waiver of stipulated restrictions or requirements must first be based upon site-specific analysis including the necessary 

supporting NEPA.

2016 MR:2.1 On split-estate lands, at the time of APD review, negotiations among the surface owner, operators, and the BLM may 

be undertaken to incorporate specific needs of the surface owner (see Appendix G, Federal Oil and Gas Operations on

Split-Estate Lands (p. 355)).

2017 MR:1.2 Utilize BMPs in the exploration, development, production, and abandonment of oil and gas resources.

2018 MR:1.1

MR:1.3

MR:2.1

MR:2.3

MR:2.4

Approximately 481,257 acres of federal mineral estate are open to oil and gas leasing subject to the terms and conditions 

of the standard lease form only (Map 3-8).

Require geothermal resource monitoring and protection within 5 miles of Hot Springs State Park and within the Thermopolis 

Anticline.

2019 MR:1.1

MR:1.3

MR:2.1

MR:2.3

MR:2.4

Approximately 1,101,542 acres of federal mineral estate are open to oil and gas leasing subject to the terms and conditions of 

the standard lease form, as well as moderate constraints (Map 3-8).

2020 MR:1.1

MR:1.3

MR:2.1

MR:2.3

MR:2.4

Approximately 939,636 acres of federal mineral estate are open to oil and gas leasing subject to the terms and conditions of 

the standard lease form, as well as major constraints (Map 3-8).

62 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
2000 MINERAL RESOURCES (MR)

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

2021 MR:1.1

MR:1.3

MR:2.1

MR:2.3

MR:2.4

Approximately 138,315 acres of federal mineral estate are closed to oil and gas leasing (Map 3-8).

2022 MR:1.1

MR:1.3

MR:2.1

MR:2.3

MR:2.4

On a case-by-case basis, prohibit suspension of existing non-producing mineral leases in areas closed to mineral leasing. 

After such leases expire, do not offer those lands for lease again.

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas Management Areas, Master Leasing Plan Areas, and Other Areas

2023 MR:1.1

MR:1.3

MR:2.1

Delineate Oil and Gas Management Areas (Map 3-9) (333,488 acres of federal mineral estate) around existing 

intensively-developed fields, applying a 2-mile buffer from the outer boundary of the existing field (Map 3-10); adding 

enhanced oil recovery areas identified by the Governor’s Office Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute and excluding Greater 

Sage-Grouse PHMAs. Manage these areas primarily for oil and gas exploration and development.

Oil and gas development, including enhanced oil recovery operations, within Oil and Gas Management Areas is allowed to 

take place at the same level and density as the existing development in the field. Levels and densities beyond the existing 

field development may require additional reclamation or compensatory offsite mitigation.

As oil and gas fields expand or exploration reaches beyond the Oil and Gas Management Areas depicted on Map 3-9, Oil 

and Gas Management Areas may be enlarged as appropriate. To enlarge Oil and Gas Management Areas, the expansion 

area would:

i) have to be adjacent to the field and under valid oil and gas lease(s) with stipulations allowing surface occupancy 

and development;

ii) have to have a surface density of, on average, at least four well pads per 640-acres; a determination that additional well 

density is required to efficiently and adequately produce the oil or gas resource;

iii) have a project-specific environmental analysis prepared to analyze the impacts and determine operating methods, 

mitigation, and BMPs to be used in the efficient and comprehensive development of the field;

iv) need surface resources to be satisfactorily mitigated; and

v) need commitment to accelerate reclamation as required by the authorized officer.

Leasable Minerals – Other Solid Leasables (Oil Shale, Tar Sands, Phosphate, etc.)

2024 MR:1.1

MR:1.3

MR:3.1

Surface disturbance restrictions for geophysical exploration activities for other solid leasable minerals apply to both leased 

and un-leased lands.

2025 MR:1.1

MR:1.3

MR:3.1

Lease solid minerals such as phosphates or sodium, consistent with other resources, on a case-by-case basis. All non-energy 

leasable mineral activities would be considered in PHMAs, provided that the activities can be completed in compliance with 

all occupancy, timing, density, and disturbance restrictions.

Worland Approved RMP 63

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
2000 MINERAL RESOURCES (MR)

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

2026 MR:1.1

MR:1.3

MR:3.1

Sherard Dome and Trapper Canyon tar sands are closed to solid mineral leasing.

Salable Minerals

2027 MR:4.1

MR:4.2

Existing BLM-approved mineral material sites (Map 3-11) are open to mineral materials disposal. New mineral materials 

disposal sites in areas open to mineral materials disposal are subject to site-specific analysis prior to approval. Ensure that 

each community pit has an updated site-specific reclamation fee based on a current mining and reclamation plan. Ensure that 

reclamation occurs in mined-out areas of community pits.

2028 MR:1.1

MR:1.2

MR:4.1

MR:4.2

Dispose of mineral materials on a case-by-case basis, subject to site-specific analysis and appropriate mitigation prior 

to approval, in areas open to mineral materials disposal.

2029 MR:1.1

MR:1.2

MR:4.1

MR:4.2

Prohibit disposal of topsoil.

2030 MR:1.1

MR:4.1

MR:4.2

2,468,896 acres are open to mineral materials disposal.

217,794 acres are closed to mineral materials disposal (Map 3-12).

Geophysical Exploration and Development

2031 MR:1.1

MR:1.3

MR:2.2

Allow geophysical exploration if it can be conducted within the constraints necessary to protect other resources and subject 

to motorized vehicle use limitations and restrictions on surface-disturbing activities.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Sequestration

2032 MR:1.2 Allow carbon dioxide sequestration research and projects in consideration of other resource objectives.

Master Leasing Plan Analysis Areas-- Absaroka Front

2033 MR:6 Apply an MLP analysis to 98,852 acres (Zone 3) in the Absaroka Front MLP Analysis Area (Map 3-13).

2034 MR:6.1

MR:6.2

MR:6.4

Zone 3 – Areas inside elk crucial winter range are subject to CSU. Oil and gas-related surface disturbances are restricted to 

no more than 1 location per lease, to include 1 well pad and ancillary facilities. Total surface disturbance per lease will not 

exceed 64 acres. A minimum lease size of 1,280 noncontiguous acres of federal mineral estate is required inside elk crucial 

winter range. Smaller parcels may be leased only when 1,280 acres of federal mineral estate are not available and leasing is 

necessary to remain in compliance with laws, regulations and policy; for example, to protect the federal mineral estatefrom 

drainage or to commit the federal mineral estate to unit or communitization agreements.

● Allow additional disturbance pending acceptable final reclamation.

● Co-locate new disturbance where technically feasible.

● Utilize unitization to minimize surface disturbance in elk crucial winter range.

2035 MR:6.1

MR:6.2

MR:6.4

Zone 3 – Apply a CSU to avoid locating new surface disturbance within forest type vegetation in areas identified as habitat 

for big game crucial winter range (Map 3-14).

64 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
2000 MINERAL RESOURCES (MR)

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

2036 MR:6.3 Zone 3 – Apply a TLS for surface-disturbing or disruptive activity from September 1-November 15 to maintain recreational 

settings for hunting within the Absaroka Mountain Foothills SRMA.

Master Leasing Plan Analysis Areas – Fifteenmile

2037 MR:6 Apply an MLP analysis to 230,869 acres in the Fifteenmile MLP Analysis Area (Map 3-13).

2038 MR:6.3

MR:6.6

Apply a CSU restriction within the Fifteenmile MLP Analysis Area. Allow no more than 1 surface disturbance per lease, to 

include 1 well pad and ancillary facilities, to maintain recreational settings, and conserve geologic features, LRP soils, allow 

no more than 1 surface disturbance per lease. Total surface disturbance per lease will not exceed 32 acres. A minimum lease 

size of 640 acres of federal mineral estate would be applied within the analysis area. The lease can consist of noncontiguous

parcels. Smaller parcels may be leased only when 640 acres of federal mineral estate are not available and leasing is 

necessary to remain in compliance with laws, regulations and policy; for example, to protect the federal mineral estate from 

drainage or to commit the federal mineral estate to unit or communitization agreements.

● Allow additional disturbance pending acceptable final reclamation.

● Co-locate new disturbance where technically feasible.

● Utilize unitization to control the pace and density of development.

2039 MR:6.6 Apply a lease notice to restrict surface disturbance on LRP soils and unique geologic features unless the operator and surface 

managing agency arrive at an acceptable plan for mitigation of anticipated impacts, which may include, but not be limited to 

include an Erosion, Revegetation and Restoration Plan.

The plan must demonstrate to the BLM authorized officer’s satisfaction how the operator will meet the following 

performance standards:

● The disturbed area will be stabilized with no evidence of accelerated erosion features.

● The disturbed area shall be managed to ensure soil characteristics approximate an appropriate reference site with regard to 

erosional features to maintain soil productivity and sustainability.

● Slope stability is maintained preventing slope failure and erosion.

● Sufficient viable topsoil is maintained for ensuring successful final reclamation. At locations where interim reclamation 

will be completed, this will be accomplished by respreading all salvaged topsoil over the areas of interim reclamation.

● The original landform and site productivity will be partially restored during interim reclamation and fully restored as a 

result of final reclamation.

2040 MR:6.5 Limit off-road vehicular use for NOS level casual use actions within the Fifteenmile MLP Analysis Area. Allow OHV and 

mechanized (mountain bike) travel up to 300 feet from established roads in areas with limited travel designations to allow 

for staking activities, provided that: 1) no resource damage occurs; 2) no new routes are created; and 3) such access is

not otherwise prohibited by the BLM authorized officer.

Master Leasing Plan Analysis Areas – Big Horn Front

2041 MR:6 Apply an MLP analysis to 236,261 acres in the Big Horn Front MLP Analysis Area (Map 3-13).

2042 MR:6.1

MR:6.2

MR:6.4

Apply an NSO restriction: Prohibit surface-disturbing activities within 1⁄2 mile of big game migration corridors within the Big 

Horn Front MLP Analysis Area.

Worland Approved RMP 65

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
2000 MINERAL RESOURCES (MR)

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

2043 MR:6.1

MR:6.2

MR:6.4

Apply a TLS to avoid surface-disturbing and disruptive activities within big game crucial winter range from November 15 

through April 30. In addition, apply a TLS to avoid surface-disturbing and disruptive activities within elk winter range from 

November 15 through April 30 within the Big Horn Front MLP Analysis Area.

Apply a CSU: Within elk crucial winter range, oil and gas-related surface disturbances would be restricted to no more than 1 

location per lease, to include 1 well pad and ancillary facilities. A minimum lease size of 1,280 acres of federal mineral estate 

would be required. The lease can consist of noncontiguous parcels. Total surface disturbance per lease will not exceed 64 

acres. Smaller parcels may be leased only when 1,280 acres of federal mineral estate is not available and leasing is necessary 

to remain in compliance with laws, regulations and policy; for example, to protect the federal mineral estate from drainage 

or to commit the federal mineral estate to unit or communitization agreements.

● Allow additional disturbance pending acceptable final reclamation.

● Co-locate new disturbance where technically feasible.

● Utilize unitization to minimize surface disturbance in crucial winter range.

2044 MR:6.5 Limit off-road vehicular use for NOS level casual use actions within the Big Horn Front MLP Analysis Area. Allow OHV 

and mechanized (mountain bike) travel up to 300 feet from established roads in areas with limited travel designations to 

allow for staking activities, provided that: 1) no resource damage occurs; 2) no new routes are created; and 3) such access is 

not otherwise prohibited by the BLM authorized officer.

66 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.7. 3000 FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT (FM)

3000 FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT (FM)

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL FM:1 The protection of human life is the single, overriding priority. Setting priorities among protecting human 

communities and community infrastructure, other property and improvements, and natural and cultural resources will be 

done based on the values to be protected, human health and safety, and the costs of protection.

Objectives:

FM:1.1 Maintain partnerships with the public and interagency cooperators to strengthen coordination of all fire management 

activities and encourage the creation of fire safe communities.

FM:1.2 Enhance the wildland fire public education prevention program regarding wildland fire.

FM:1.3 Manage fuels to restore and maintain landscapes, and promote fire-adapted communities and infrastructure. Fire and 

fuels management actions will focus on restoring natural fire regimes and frequencies, and accomplishing DPC objectives.

FM:1.4 Utilize fire management strategies and tactics that are appropriate for the values at risk while also minimizing 

impacts on resource values.

FM:1.5 Following wildland fires, conduct appropriate emergency stabilization and rehabilitation when and where needed. In 

priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat areas, prioritize suppression immediately after life and property to conserve the habitat. 

In general Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, prioritize suppression where wildfires threaten priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.

FM:1.6 Management of fire and fuels will be as consistent as possible with approved local fire plans in coordination 

with counties, cooperators, and stakeholders.

GOAL FM:2 Restore natural fire regimes and frequencies to the landscape, and utilize fire and vegetation treatments to 

accomplish DPC objectives.

Objectives:

FM:2.1 Consult and cooperate with adjacent landowners, state and local governments, and other stakeholders to plan and 

implement prescribed fire and other vegetation treatments across the landscape. In areas of general Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat, design and implement fuels treatments with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems.

FM:2.2 Implement and maintain a FMP for the planning area; the FMP identifies the site-specific fire management practices 

and fuels treatment actions needed to meet this RMP’s goals and objectives and includes a focus on restoring natural fire 

regimes and frequencies or accomplishing DPC objectives.

3001 FM:2.1 Ensure all prescribed burning activities comply with Wyoming DEQ air quality standards and smoke management rules.

Worland Approved RMP 67

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
3000 FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT (FM)

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

3002 FM:1.5 Implement the BLM Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation standards located in the BLM Burned Area Emergency 

Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook (BLM 2007b).

3003 FM:1.4

FM:1.1

Base the response to wildfires consistent with objectives and the cost/benefits of the resources at risk. For Wildland Fire 

Management, the protection of human life is the single, overriding priority. Setting priorities among protecting human 

communities and community infrastructure, other property and improvements, and natural and cultural resources will be 

done based on the values to be protected, human health and safety, and the costs of protection.

3004 FM:1.4

HR:3.3

Restrict or prohibit the use of fire retardant chemicals as appropriate to protect rock art. Avoid aerial application of fire 

suppressant chemicals within 300 feet of perennial waters. Consider ground-based application on a case-by-case basis.

3005 HR:3.3 Prohibit the use of bulldozers in areas of important cultural resources or historic trails for fire suppression unless an 

archeologist and/or resource advisor is present.

3006 HR:1.2 Assign an archeologist to all fires with heavy equipment employed beyond Minimum Impact Suppression Techniques (see 

Glossary) to assist in determinations of appropriate suppression strategies.

3007 FM:1 

FM:2

Maintain and implement an FMP consistent with this RMP to address fire management on a landscape scale. Under the 

appropriate environmental conditions the use of unplanned ignitions for resource benefit and prescribed fire to meet resource 

management objectives is allowed in the entire planning area.

3008 FM:1 Suppress fires threatening Greater Sage-Grouse habitats and crucial winter wildlife habitat within Wyoming big sagebrush 

communities. Where fire would be utilized to meet resource objectives, work closely with resource specialists to protect and 

improve Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.

For fuels management, the BLM would consider multiple tools for fuels reduction and would analyze in NEPA compliance 

documentation before electing to implement prescribed fire in PHMAs.

If prescribed fire is used in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, the NEPA analysis for the Burn Plan will address:

● why alternative techniques were not selected as a viable options;

● how Greater Sage-Grouse goals and objectives would be met by its use;

● how the COT Report objectives would be addressed and met; and

● a risk assessment to address how potential threats to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would be minimized.

Prescribed fire as a vegetation or fuels treatment in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat shall only be considered after the NEPA 

analysis for the Burn Plan has addressed the four bullets outlined above. Prescribed fire could be used to meet specific fuels 

objectives that would protect Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in PHMAs (e.g., creation of fuel breaks that would disrupt the 

fuel continuity across the landscape in stands where annual invasive grasses are a minor component in the understory, 

burning slash piles from conifer reduction treatments, used as a component with other treatment methods to combat annual 

grasses and restore native plant communities).

Prescribed fire in known crucial winter wildlife habitat shall only be considered after the NEPA analysis for the Burn Plan 

has addressed the four bullets outlined above. Any prescribed fire in and/or around crucial winter wildlife habitat must be 

strategically-designed to reduce wildfire risk and protect winter range habitat quality.

3009 FM:1 Protect facilities or habitable structures from fire.

68 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
3000 FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT (FM)

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

3010 FM:2 Cooperate with other agencies and landowners to conduct landscape treatments, resulting in enhanced fuels management 

and/or restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems.

3011 FM:1.1

BR:4.3

In cooperation with the WGFD, identify waters that contain high-risk aquatic invasive species. Avoid using these identified 

water sources for suppression activities except in cases where public and firefighter safety are threatened.

3012 FM:1.1

BR:4.3

Clean (i.e., disinfect) fire-fighting equipment where water sources containing high-risk aquatic invasive species must be 

utilized.

3013 FM:2 Reduce hazardous fuels in the wildland urban interface.

3014 FM:1.4

FM:1.1

Response to wildland fire may vary from full suppression in areas where fire is undesirable, to monitoring fire behavior in 

areas where fire can be used as a management tool.

3015 FM:2.1

FM:2.2

Utilize wildland fires (wildfires managed for resource benefit and prescribed fires) and other vegetation treatments to restore

fire‐adapted ecosystems, reduce hazardous fuels, and accomplish resource management objectives.

3016 FM:2.1

FM:2.2

Use mechanical, chemical, and biological treatments across the landscape as needed to restore vegetative diversity and

reduce the risk of unnatural fire within those ecosystems.

Worland Approved RMP 69

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.8. 4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Forest Products 

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Forest Products

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL BR:1 Maintain, enhance, or restore forest stand community health, composition, and diversity taking into account 

density, basal area, canopy cover, age class, stand health, and understory components.

Objectives:

BR:1.1 Maintain overall forest health by managing forest and woodland stands for endemic populations of native insects 

and disease.

BR:1.2 Provide for commercial and local forest product needs in consideration of other resource values.

4001 BR:1.1

BR:1.2

Close campgrounds to cutting of timber and firewood, except for purposes of public safety and campground management.

4002 BR:1.1 Regenerate all harvest areas by natural or artificial means consistent with BLM policy. If at the end of fifteen years any 

clear-cut area fails to regenerate naturally, use planting and other methods to assure regeneration unless converting 

vegetation to another type is the objective.

4003 BR:1.1 Slash resulting from timber harvesting will be made available for biomass, piled or lopped and scattered, roller chopped, or 

burned to provide watershed protection, promote reforestation, provide nutrient recycling, and improve wildlife habitat.

4004 BR:1.1 Require a permit for harvesting firewood and other forest products on BLM-administered land, except for small amounts 

used onsite for camping, cooking, or warming.

4005 BR:1.1 Surface-disturbing activities associated with all types of forest management are subject to appropriate mitigation developed 

through use of the mitigation guidelines described in the Wyoming Forestry BMPs (Appendix C, Required Design Features

and Best Management Practices (p. 249)).

4006 BR:1.1 Consider the commercial harvest of forest products and other vegetative treatments on all forest and woodland areas, except 

those areas excluded from harvest by law or statute, to accomplish wildlife, watershed, and forest management objectives. 

Base actual harvest levels on treatments needed to meet management objectives to restore historic processes, composition, 

and structures of the forests and woodlands.

4007 BR:1.1

BR:1.2

Allowable cut figures, when calculated, reflect the level of harvest needed to develop and maintain the desired structure 

of forestland base.

4008 BR:1.2 Allow the sale of permits to meet public demand for personal use and harvest of forest products including posts, poles, 

firewood, sawlogs, Christmas trees, and other vegetative products consistent with wildlife habitat requirements. After NEPA 

analysis, authorize commercial use for seed collections or for use in habitat restoration or research.

4009 BR:1.1 Apply forest management techniques to attain the management goals of timber production and enhancement of other 

resource values if traditional forms of logging are not possible or if stands are not purchased when offered for sale. These 

may include: (1) burning instead of logging, (2) disease treatment by spraying, (3) spraying grasses and shrubs to eliminate 

competition with tree species, or (4) non-commercial mechanical treatments.

4010 BR:1 Manage forestlands to enhance or maintain resources or multiple resource uses, such as recreation opportunities, livestock 

grazing, forest products, wildlife, watershed, and scenic values where appropriate for the forest type. Some of these lands are 

on the west slope of the Big Horn Mountains and Absaroka Mountains.

70 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Forest Products

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

4011 BR:1.1 Apply partial cutting, extended forest crop rotations, or other restrictions on forest management where applicable.

4012 BR:1.1 Evaluate the size, extent, distance from roads, and characteristics of forestland vegetation, when forest harvests are 

considered, to maintain or improve the effectiveness of residual wildlife security areas.

4013 BR:1.1 Maintain sustainable populations of forest and woodland tree species, including limber pine, subalpine fir, whitebark pine, 

cottonwood, willow, Rocky Mountain juniper, Utah juniper, and aspen, while enhancing the management of intermingled 

resources and resources uses, such as watersheds, wildlife habitat, scenic values, recreation opportunities, and livestock 

grazing.

4014 BR:1.1 Actively promote aspen regeneration throughout the planning area using a variety of vegetation treatments and natural 

processes.

4015 BR:1.1

BR:1.2

On a priority basis, plant conifer areas exposed by wildfire and harvesting with conifer species found in managed or desired 

forest and woodland areas if they do not regenerate naturally 15 years.

4016 BR:1.1 Projects in old growth stands must fully maintain, or contribute toward the restoration of the structure and composition of old 

growth stands according to pre-suppression old growth condition characteristics of the forest type, taking into account the 

contribution of the stand to landscape fire adaptation and watershed health, and retaining the large trees contributing to old 

growth structure. Identify old growth forest characteristics for the various forest types. Adopt connectivity of existing or 

potential old growth areas whenever feasible.

4017 BR:1.1 Manage endemic insect and disease with the full range of silviculture techniques and treatment methods.

4018 BR:1.1 Allow salvage of dead stands on a case‐by‐case basis with appropriate levels of snag retention.

4019 BR:1.2 Allow precommercial thinning in overstocked areas and regenerated timber sale areas when trees in those areas the 10- to 

20-year age class or when the regenerated trees are 5- to 15-feet tall.

4020 BR:1 Assess the need to close existing and future timber access and haul roads on a case-by-case basis. Generally, close spur 

roads after completion of timber management.

4021 BR:1.1 Perform treatments in all woodland types, including but not limited to juniper, aspen, cottonwood, and ponderosa, limber, 

and whitebark pine woodlands.

4022 BR:1.1 Use logging, timbering, or wildland fire when appropriate to revitalize decadent stands and improve stand density.

4023 BR:1.1 Manage conifer encroachment to improve wildlife habitat and forest health conditions as well as make progress toward 

potential natural communities, as determined by the site’s ESD.

4024 BR:1.2 Within the areas classified as commercial forestland, conduct timber harvesting in a manner that protects and benefits 

watershed, wildlife, and riparian/wetland habitat values; emphasize areas where forest health is a primary concern.

4025 BR:1.1 Use a variety of silvicultural practices and cutting methods, such as clear cutting, shelterwood, individual tree and group 

selection, and various regeneration treatments.

4026 BR:1.1 In important seasonal wildlife habitat areas, generally restrict clear cuts to no more than 100 acres unless salvaging dead or 

dying timber.

Worland Approved RMP 71

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.9. 4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL BR:2 Manage vegetation resources to meet DPC objectives.

Objectives:

BR:2.1 Manage native plant communities to restore, maintain, or enhance vegetation community health, composition, 

and diversity to provide a mix of successional stages that incorporate diverse structure and composition into the desired 

vegetation types.

BR:2.2 Maintain, improve, enhance, or restore native plant communities to facilitate the conservation, recovery, and 

maintenance of populations of native and desirable nonnative plant species and wildlife habitat.

BR:2.3 Maintain, improve, or enhance areas of ecological importance, priority plant species and habitats, and unique plant 

associations with native plant communities.

BR:2.4 Manage native plant communities across landscapes through cooperation with adjacent landowners, state and 

local governments, and other stakeholders.

BR:2.5 Coordinate with local, state, and federal agencies, and stakeholders to protect and recover native plant communities, 

and their included vegetative resources and habitat components affected by extreme environmental conditions.

BR:2.6 In PHMAs, the desired condition is to maintain all lands ecologically capable of producing sagebrush (but no less 

than 70 percent) with a minimum of 15 percent sagebrush cover or as consistent with specific ecological site conditions. The 

attributes necessary to sustain these habitats are described in Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (BLM Technical 

Reference 1734-6 [BLM 2005c]).

4027 BR:2.1

BR:2.2

BR:2.4

BR:2.6

Manage native plant communities (Map 3-15) in accordance with Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (BLM 

1997). Use ESDs and other available information, resource objectives established in this RMP, and specific management 

practices to maintain or achieve the standards.

4028 BR:2 Continue to monitor and evaluate climatic and vegetative data. Compile and share data with other land management agencies 

and partners within the planning area using a cooperative, collaborative approach. Should the analysis of data indicate that 

the vegetative resource is either not meeting or making significant progress towards meeting the Wyoming Standards

for Healthy Rangelands or other site specific vegetative objectives, corrective management actions will be implemented 

to achieve desired results.

72 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

4029 BR:2.1-2.4 

BR:2.6

Manage to achieve or make progress toward the appropriate community phase for the site. In plant communities determined 

to be meeting Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands, manage to maintain or improve those communities.

Potentially manage some areas for a higher plant community state or phase (based on state and transition models in ESDs) 

where site-specific management objectives determine that a higher plant community state or phase is desirable. In these areas 

the desired plant community states or phases will be determined on a site-specific basis at the implementationlevel.

Manage areas at a lower level of ecological status to provide preferred habitat for wildlife species with unique habitat 

requirements on a case-by-case basis.

4030 BR:2.1-2.3 

BR:2.6

Manage to maintain contiguous blocks of native plant communities and minimize fragmentation; allow for appropriate 

mosaic of interrelated plant communities while allowing for other resource uses.

Worland Approved RMP 73

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.10. 4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Vegetation – Riparian/Wetland Resources

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Vegetation – Riparian/Wetland Resources

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL BR:3 Manage riparian/wetland areas to provide a natural combination of vegetation and landform to provide the 

habitat and the water conditions necessary for aquatic and terrestrial species.

Objectives:

BR:3.1 Manage vegetation, soil, landform, and water to meet PFC.

BR:3.2 Manage priority riparian/wetland areas to attain desired future conditions unique to the landscape setting.

BR:3.3 Manage riparian/wetland areas with consideration of the effects of all herbivory.

BR:3.4 Manage riparian/wetland areas in consideration of the working landscape.

BR:3.5 Manage riparian/wetland vegetation communities to attain an appropriate mix of wetland plant species and 

age-classes, with high vigor and extensive root systems, capable of withstanding high streamflow events.

4031 BR:3.1

BR:3.2

BR:3.4

BR:3.5

Manage to meet PFC and Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands in lotic and lentic riparian/wetland areas.

4032 BR:3.1

BR:3.2

BR:3.4

BR:3.5

Consider linear watercourse crossings on a case-by-case basis.

4033 BR:3.1

BR:3.2

BR:3.4

BR:3.5

Ensure all actions comply with EO 11988, Floodplain Management, and EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and the 

Wyoming DEQ water quality standards, applicable regulations, and permitting requirements, including U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Section 404 permits, storm water, and other Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits.

4034 BR:3.1

BR:3.2

BR:3.4

BR:3.5

Manage all riparian/wetland areas and streams with unique recreational or aquatic values to meet or make progress towards 

PFC, giving priority to those areas that are functioning at risk with a downward trend or that are in non-functioning condition.

74 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Vegetation – Riparian/Wetland Resources

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

4035 BR:3.1

BR:3.2

BR:3.4

BR:3.5

Prohibit surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of surface water and riparian/wetland areas (39,801 acres) except when 

such activities are necessary and when their impacts can be mitigated.

4036 BR:3.1

BR:3.2

BR:3.4

BR:3.5

Apply an NSO restriction on wetland areas greater than 20 acres and on designated 100-year flood plains.

Worland Approved RMP 75

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.11. 4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Invasive Species and Pest Management 

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Invasive Species and Pest Management

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL BR:4 Manage for healthy native plant communities by reducing, preventing expansion of, or eliminating the 

occurrence of undesirable invasive, nonnative species, undesirable, nonnative, or noxious weeds (predatory plant pests or 

disease) by implementing management actions consistent with national guidance and state and local weed management plans.

Objectives:

BR:4.1 Maintain internal (BLM) and external support for managing invasive species using an integrated approach for 

the detection, control, or eradication of new infestations.

BR:4.2 Maintain adequate baseline information regarding the extent and control of invasive species to make informed 

decisions, evaluate effectiveness of management actions, and assess progress toward goals to improve invasive species 

management.

BR:4.3 Continue coordination of invasive species detection and control activities across the working landscape including non 

BLM-administered lands, and include provisions for invasive species management for all BLM-funded or authorized actions.

4037 BR:4.1-4.3 Manage invasive plant species in the planning area in conjunction with local counties and other stakeholders consistent 

with the ROD for the Final PEIS addressing Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States 

(BLM 2007a), and current with policy and similar guidance updated over time.

4038 BR:4.1-4.3 Manage invasive plant species using an Integrated Pest Management approach consistent with DOI Manual 517, Integrated 

Pest Management (DOI 2007).

4039 BR:4 Avoid raptor and migratory bird nesting seasons and other times when loss of cover or disturbance by equipment used in 

a treatment is determined to be detrimental.

4040 BR:4.1-4.3 In cooperation with APHIS and other stakeholders, work to control outbreaks of grasshopper and Mormon crickets on 

BLM-administered land in the planning area in accordance with the MOU between BLM and APHIS.

4041 BR:4.1

BR:4.3

Use certified noxious weed-seed free vegetation products on all BLM-administered land in the planning area.

4042 BR:4 Allow the application of pesticides within the Spanish Point Karst ACEC when drinking water will not be impacted.

4043 BR:4.2 Develop and maintain an invasive species and pest management plan. If necessary, review and update this plan annually 

based on available funding and input from other agencies, organizations, and interested stakeholders.

4044 BR:4.2

BR:4.3

Reduce and prevent the expansion of cheatgrass through cooperation with other agencies, organizations, and interested 

stakeholders. Treat areas that contain cheatgrass and other invasive or noxious species to minimize competition and favor 

establishment of desired species.

4045 BR:4.2

BR:4.3

Reduce and prevent beet leafhopper infestations on BLM-administered land through cooperation with appropriate 

government and state agencies, private industry, and other interested stakeholders.

4046 BR:4.3 Cooperate and coordinate with appropriate government agencies, private industry, and other interested stakeholders in public 

education, research, management, and control of aquatic invasive species.

76 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Invasive Species and Pest Management

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

4047 BR:4.3 In cooperation with other agencies, organizations, and interested stakeholders, seek opportunities to promote public 

awareness and prevention of noxious and invasive species through public outreach, volunteer programs, signage, and 

other appropriate measures.

4048 BR:4 Allow aerial application of pesticides on a case-by-case basis in coordination with the authorized officer.

4049 BR:4.1-4.3 Require livestock flushing on a case-by-case basis.

Worland Approved RMP 77

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.12. 4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Fish and Wildlife Resources

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Fish and Wildlife Resources

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL BR:5 In compliance with the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (BLM 1997), manage for the biological 

integrity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to sustain or enhance fish and wildlife habitat, while providing for multiple 

uses of BLM-administered lands.

Objectives:

BR:5.1 Manage habitat to conserve, recover, and maintain fish and wildlife consistent with appropriate local, state, and 

federal management plans.

BR:5.2 Work cooperatively with the WGFD to recommend adjustments to herd objectives based upon habitat condition 

trends and recommend wildlife use adjustments if monitoring data indicate adjustments are necessary.

BR:5.3 Manage fish and wildlife habitats in consideration of the working landscape.

GOAL BR:6 Manage environmental risks and associated impacts in a manner compatible with sustaining plant, fish, 

and wildlife populations.

Objectives:

BR:6.1 Minimize, avoid, and mitigate impacts of environmental risks on fish and wildlife.

BR:6.2 Manage pesticide, rodenticide, and herbicide application in a manner compatible with fish and wildlife health.

BR:6.3 Coordinate with other agencies to prevent or control diseases that threaten the health of humans, wildlife, livestock, 

and vegetation.

BR:6.4 Coordinate with other agencies who manage native and nonnative predatory animals that pose a threat to the 

health or productivity of natural ecosystems.

4050 BR:5.1

BR:5.3

Coordinate with WGFD to design reservoirs with consideration of fish and wildlife habitat values.

Fish

4051 BR:5.1

BR:5.3

BR:6.1

Direct priority management in planning/actions for fisheries to perennial waters containing fish or contributing directly 

to fisheries.

4052 BR:5.1

BR:5.3

Manage intermittent streams judged as having potential to become, or return to being, perennial streams with fish on a 

watershed scale to acquire perennial flows values in compliance with Wyoming water laws.

78 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Fish and Wildlife Resources

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

4053 BR:5.1

BR:5.3

BR:6.1

Apply an NSO restriction and prohibit surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet and apply a CSU and avoid

surface-disturbing activities within 1⁄4 mile of any waters rated by the WGFD as Blue Ribbon or Red Ribbon (trout streams of 

national or statewide importance).

4054 BR:5.1

BR:5.3

BR:6.1

On a priority basis and in coordination with stakeholders, restore and reclaim important stream segments for fisheries habitat 

with the highest priority given to species listed on the State Species of Greatest Conservation Need. 

4055 BR:5.1

BR:5.3

BR:6.1

Manage fisheries habitat to improve and enhance its value through the implementation of management practices such as 

vegetation manipulation and planting, installing sediment and erosion control structures, fencing, and acquiring, developing, 

and maintaining water sources.

4056 BR:5.1

BR:5.3

BR:6.1

Encourage reservoir design to enhance fisheries and to establish minimum pools sufficient to maintain viable fisheries. 

Maintain existing reservoir and stream fishery habitat. Existing reservoirs are managed by the ROW stipulations attached 

to them at the time of their construction and the BLM encourages managing for minimum pool levels, but cannot require 

them after issuing a ROW.

4057 BR:5.1

BR:5.3

BR:6.1

On a priority basis, design or retrofit culverts in streams containing fish to allow fish passage, both upstream and downstream, 

in both low and high water flows. Harden low water crossings to minimize sediment movement. Low water crossings should 

be perpendicular to streams and located in straight stream reachesto avoid flow modification that could cause erosion of banks

Wildlife

4058 BR:5.1 Maintain or improve important wildlife habitats through vegetative manipulations, habitat improvement projects,livestock 

grazing strategies and the application of The Wyoming Guidelines for Managing Sagebrush Communities with Emphasis 

on Fire Management (Wyoming Interagency Vegetation Committee 2002) and the Wyoming BLM Standard Mitigation

Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities (Appendix F, Wyoming Bureau of Land Management Mitigation

Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities (p. 349)), BMPs (Appendix C, Required Design Features and

Best Management Practices (p. 249)), and similar guidance updated over time.

4059 BR:5.1 Continue to implement the following existing HMPs and update as necessary to include management objectives and 

prescriptions for wildlife: West Slope HMP, Bighorn River HMP, and Absaroka Front HMP.

4060 BR:5.1

BR:6.1

Prohibit surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in the Bighorn River HMP/RAMP tracts and apply an NSO restriction as 

appropriate. Exceptions include casual use and uses related to the development of recreation facilities or wildlife habitat, 

including vegetation treatments.

4061 BR:5.1 In cooperation with the USFS, WGFD, and other stakeholders, work to maintain and enhance healthy bighorn sheep habitat.

4062 BR:5.1-5.3 In cooperation with the USFS, USFWS, WGFD, and other stakeholders, work to determine the feasibility of reestablishing 

bighorn sheep at other suitable locations.

4063 BR:5.1-5.3 Consider transmission of disease between wildlife and domestic livestock in grazing authorizations. Follow the 

recommendations for the protection of bighorn sheep in the Statewide Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Interaction Report (Wyoming 

State-wide Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Interaction Working Group 2004), and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies (WAFWA) Wild Sheep Working Group Initial Subcommittee Recommendations for Domestic Sheep and Goat 

Management in Wild Sheep Habitat June 12, 2007 (WAFWA 2007), and similar guidance that is updated over time.

4064 BR:5.1

BR:5.2

In cooperation with stakeholders on a case-by-case basis, manage for the augmentation and/or reintroduction of important 

wildlife species within suitable habitats and in accordance with applicable policy and guidance (e.g., BLM Manual 1745, 

Introduction, Transplant, Augmentation and Reestablishment of Fish, Wildlife and Plants).

Worland Approved RMP 79

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Fish and Wildlife Resources

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

4065 BR:5.2

BR:6.4

Coordinate authorized animal damage control with federal and state wildlife agencies, and other agencies, as appropriate, 

using guidance provided by the existing MOU (APHIS and BLM 2003).

4066 BR:6.1 Consult with the WGFD in applying mitigation for wildlife needs and before waiving, allowing exceptions to, or modifying 

wildlife-related land use restrictions and mitigation in conformance with MOU WY131 Appendix 5 (g).

4067 BR:6.1 In consideration of other resources, provide, to the extent possible, suitable habitat to support wildlife populations defined in 

the Cody Region Big Game Job Completion Report (https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Hunting/Job-Completion-Reports) objectives.

Cooperatively consider proposals by the BLM or WGFD to change population objective levels based on habitat capability 

and availability.

4068 BR:5.1 In cooperation with WGFD, local governments, and other stakeholders, limit access (including public access via all 

modes-of-transport) where necessary in crucial habitat and sensitive species habitat. The type of limitation, if any, depends 

on the kind of resource value being protected.

4069 BR:5.1

BR:5.2

In cooperation with WGFD and other stakeholders, work to develop water sources for wildlife and special status species in 

coordination with the WGFD and the BLM Water Development Handbook (H-1741-2).

4070 BR:5.1

BR:5.3

Conduct habitat enhancement vegetation treatments within sagebrush communities as opportunities and funding allow, 

consistent with EO 2015-4 (Wyoming Office of the Governor 2015).

4071 BR:5.1

BR:6.1

Modify identified hazard fences, and analyze and construct new fences in accordance with wildlife needs, the BLM Fencing 

Handbook 1741-1, and WO IM 2010-022, Managing Structures for the Safety of Sage-grouse, Sharp-tailed grouse, and 

Lesser Prairie-chicken, and similar guidance and policy as updated over time.

4072 BR:5.1-5.3 Conduct vegetation treatments within aspen stands for wildlife values as opportunities and funding allow.

4073 BR:5.1

BR:5.3

Pursue exchanges to enhance public access or improve management of important wildlife habitat areas by consolidating 

public land. In cooperation with willing sellers and other stakeholders, consider all land tenure adjustment authorities for the 

acquisition of, and interest in, lands for the improved management of important wildlife habitat.

Emphasize the acquisition of access to public lands on the Bighorn and Greybull rivers; Gooseberry Creek; the upper portions 

of Cottonwood and Grass Creeks; and on lands where other riparian areas occur.

4074 BR:6.1 Apply a TLS to avoid surface-disturbing and disruptive activities within big game crucial winter range (1,458,712 acres) 

from November 15 through April 30, except exempt Oil and Gas Management Areas (Map 3-9) from discretionary big 

game seasonal stipulations.

4075 BR:6.1 Absaroka Front Management Area (51,739 acres of BLM-administered surface land; 98,852 acres of federal mineral estate):

● a mix of CSU (31,996 acres), NSO (41,215 acres), and closed to leasing (17,184 acres) on the federal mineral estate 

(Map 3-14)

● areas available for leasing are open to geophysical exploration with specific resource protection

● manage as a renewable energy avoidance area

● manage as a ROW avoidance area

● partially closed to motorized vehicle use and limited to designated roads and trails on the rest of the area

Allow and seasonally stipulate, where feasible, vegetative/silviculture treatments; invasive, nonnative pest species control;

fuels management; and maintenance of existing facilities.

80 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Fish and Wildlife Resources

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

4076 BR:6.1 Allow water development projects in crucial elk winter range and in greater Greater Sage-Grouse nesting habitat with 10 

inches or less annual precipitation only when adverse effects can be avoided, minimized and/or compensated based on 

site-specific analysis. Allow existing uses pending site-specific analysis on a priority basis.

4077 BR:6.1 Apply wildlife seasonal protections for surface-disturbing and disruptive activities to non-routine maintenance and operation 

of projects when the actions are determined to be detrimental to wildlife through site-specific NEPA analysis.

4078 BR:5.1

BR:6.1

Identify and protect traditional migration and travel corridors for big game wildlife species and migratory birds on a 

case-by-case basis. In the Big Horn Front MLP Analysis Area, prohibit surface-disturbing activities within 1⁄2 mile of 

big game migration corridors (12,890 acres) (Map 3-17).

4079 BR:5.1 Determine the appropriate DPC to manage vegetation on a case-by-case basis in areas identified as habitat for special status 

species or crucial winter range for big game.

4080 BR:6.1 Avoid wind energy projects in big game crucial winter range and raptor concentration areas.

Wind-energy development would be avoided in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs (Map 3-17), and not allowed unless it can 

be sufficiently demonstrated that the development activity would not result in declines of Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA 

populations. Sufficient demonstration of “no declines” should be coordinated with the WGFD and USFWS.

4081 BR:5.1 At the discretion of the BLM and its stakeholders, use produced water to develop and enhance waterfowl, special status 

species, and other wildlife habitats in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

4082 BR:5.1

BR:6.1

Allow temporary closures of designated roads, trails, or geographic areas within big game crucial winter range depending on 

impacts to big game, weather conditions, and/or human caused disturbance levels.

Worland Approved RMP 81

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.13. 4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Special Status Species

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Special Status Species

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL BR:7 WILDLIFE – Manage for the biological integrity and habitat functionality to facilitate the conservation, 

recovery, and maintenance of populations of fish and wildlife to avoid contributing to the listing of or jeopardizing the 

continued existence or recovery of special status species and their habitats.

Objectives:

BR:7.1 Maintain or enhance areas of ecological importance for special status wildlife species.

BR:7.2 Conserve and recover special status wildlife species by determining and implementing conservation strategies 

including restoration opportunities, use restrictions, and management actions.

BR:7.3 Manage specific environmental hazards, risks, and impacts in a manner compatible with special status wildlife 

species health.

BR:7.4 Maintain sufficient undisturbed or minimally disturbed habitats to protect special status wildlife species resource 

values while providing for multiple use management.

BR:7.5 Develop and implement HMPs, activity plans, or use other mechanisms to protect high priority special status 

wildlife species.

BR:7.6 Manage special status fish and wildlife species in consideration of the working landscape.

GOAL BR:8 PLANTS – Manage for the biological integrity and habitat function to facilitate the conservation, recovery, and 

maintenance of populations of BLM special status plant species and to avoid contributing to the listing of or jeopardizing 

the continued existence or recovery of special status species and their habitats.

Objectives:

BR:8.1 Manage the habitats of special status plants to meet or exceed the Wyoming Standard #4 for Healthy Rangelands.

BR:8.2 Protect or enhance habitat for BLM special status plant species.

BR:8.3 Maintain sufficient undisturbed or minimally disturbed habitats to protect special status plant species resource values 

while providing for multiple use management.

BR:8.4 Manage specific environmental hazards, risks, and impacts in a manner compatible with BLM special status plant 

species’ health.

BR:8.5 Manage BLM special status plant species in consideration of the working landscape.

82 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Special Status Species

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL BR:9 GREATER SAGE-GROUSE – Sustain the integrity of the sagebrush biome to provide the amount, continuity, 

and quality of habitat that is necessary to maintain sustainable populations of Greater Sage-Grouse and other species

by achieving the objectives below.

Objectives:

BR:9.1 Maintain large patches of high quality sagebrush habitats, with emphasis on patches occupied by Greater 

Sage-Grouse.

BR:9.2 Maintain connections between sagebrush habitats, with emphasis on connections between habitats occupied 

by Greater Sage-Grouse.

GOAL BR:10 Identify the amount of habitat that should undergo restoration and/or rehabilitation during the life of the plan 

and initiate restoration and/or rehabilitation by achieving the objective below.

Objective:

BR:10.1 Reconnect large patches of sagebrush habitat with emphasis on reconnecting patches occupied by stronghold and 

isolated populations of Greater Sage-Grouse.

4083 BR:7.1-7.4 

BR:7.6 

BR:8.1-8.5

Postpone or modify projects that may negatively affect special status species to protect these species. Consult with USFWS 

in such cases, in accordance with the Endangered Species Act.

4084 BR:7.1-7.4 

BR:7.6 

BR:8.1-8.5

Consult with stakeholders early in the permitting process to design projects in a manner that would minimize or avoid 

potential adverse effects to special status species.

4085 BR:7.2

BR:8.3

BR:9.1

BR:9.2 

BR:10.1

Assist authorized agencies in the restoration, reintroduction, augmentation, or re-establishment of threatened, endangered, 

and other special status species populations and/or habitats.

4086 BR:7.1-7.4 

BR:7.6 

BR:8.1-8.5

Motorized vehicle use is limited to designated roads and trails in essential and recovery habitat for threatened or endangered 

species as identified and designated by USFWS.

Greater Sage-Grouse

4087 BR:9.1 Discourage the use of broad-spectrum insecticides where insect control is required. Target pest control toward key problem 

areas and schedule applications to be effective in minimum doses in Greater Sage-Grouse brood-rearing areas. Field Offices 

may implement treatments within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat utilizing RAATS protocols.

4088 BR:9.1 Avoid aerial pesticide spraying in favor of ground applications to minimize drift into non-target areas in Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat unless benefits of treatments are likely to outweigh impacts.

Worland Approved RMP 83

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Special Status Species

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

4089 BR:9.1 Avoid applying pesticides to Greater Sage-Grouse breeding habitat during the nesting and early brood-rearing season (March 

15 through June 30) to reduce the loss of food supply to chicks and avoid the chance of secondary poisoning unless benefits 

of treatments are likely to outweigh impacts.

4090 BR:10.1 Maintain seeps, springs, wet meadows, and riparian vegetation in a functional and diverse condition for young Greater 

Sage-Grouse and other species that depend on forbs and insects associated with these areas.

Consider management actions if desirable green vegetation associated with these wet areas is not available, accessible, or 

cannot be maintained with current livestock, wildlife, or wild horse use, and the impacts are outweighed by the improved 

habitat quality.

4091 BR:10.1 Restore Greater Sage-Grouse brood-rearing habitats in riparian/wetland areas.

4092 BR:10.1 Restore lost riparian functioning systems by repairing abnormally incised drainages to raise water tables and increase water 

storage and brood-rearing habitats within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.

4093 BR:9.1 Manage vegetation composition diversity and structure, as determined by ESD, or other methods that reference site potential, 

and WGFD protocols to achieve Greater Sage-Grouse habitat management objectives, in cooperation with stakeholders.

Evaluate the role of existing seedings that are currently composed of primarily introduced perennial grasses in andadjacent 

to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat to determine if they should be restored to sagebrush or habitat of higher quality for 

Greater Sage-Grouse. If these seedings provide value in conserving or enhancing Greater Sage-Grouse habitats, then no 

restoration would be necessary. Assess the compatibility of these seedings for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat during the land 

health assessments.

Burned areas within PHMAs would be restored to suitable habitat with consideration given to ESDs, reference sites, 

site potential and local variability.

The BLM could bring in burned area rehabilitation and Burned Area Emergency Response teams who would work 

cooperatively with partners at the federal, state, and local levels to rehabilitate and restore Greater Sage-Grouse habitats in a 

manner consistent with the core habitat populations area strategy for conservation. DDCT reviews would be conducted in 

coordination with the WGFD Habitat Protection Program located in Cheyenne, Wyoming at the WGFD headquarters. Areas 

within PHMAs would be prioritized for restoration of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat beyond immediate response.

4094 BR:10.1 Maintain sagebrush and understory diversity (relative to ecological site description) in crucial seasonal Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitats unless such removal is necessary to achieve Greater Sage-Grouse habitat management objectives. For example, 

thinning small patches of dense sagebrush may increase desirable forbs in early brood-rearing habitat.

4095 BR:10.1 Increase the composition and canopy cover of Wyoming big sagebrush, within existing nonnative grass seedings with less 

than 5 percent sagebrush canopy cover, to greater than or equal to neighboring sagebrush communities or historical levels. 

(See Shrubland-Salt Desert/Salt Bottom on Map 3-15; deeper soiled, and gentler sloped portions of the Shrubland-Salt 

Desert/Salt Bottom, colored in pink, would be those areas where sagebrush restoration efforts could be conducted.)

4096 BR:10.1 Investigate opportunities to increase sagebrush in lower precipitation zones.

4097 BR:9.1 Plan and construct mining and mineral development activities, to the degree possible given state water rights, to minimize 

disturbances that would result in alterations to springs and riparian Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Alternative water sources 

may be developed to replace natural sources that have been affected or destroyed during these development activities.

84 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Special Status Species

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

4098 BR:8.3

BR:8.5

Treat constructed or non-natural water storage impoundments to control mosquito breeding (and the associated spread of 

West Nile virus), to prevent disease spread to Greater Sage-Grouse as necessary.

4099 BR:9.1 In cooperation with stakeholders, manage to promote the growth and persistence of native shrubs, grasses, and forbs needed 

by Greater Sage-Grouse for seasonal food and concealment.

4100 BR:9.1 In cooperation with stakeholders, design and locate fences so as not to disturb PHMAs. Increase the visibility of fences in 

these areas which have been identified as hazardous to flying Greater Sage-Grouse.

4101 BR:9.1 Conduct fire management activities to minimize overall wildfire size and frequency in sagebrush plant communities where 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat objectives are at risk.

General priorities for habitat protection:

Priority # 1 – Protection of Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs.

Priority # 2 – Wyoming big sagebrush communities outside Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs and habitats recovering from 

disturbance within or adjacent to Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs.

4102 BR:9.1 Annually maintain FMPs to incorporate updated sagebrush habitat information as well as fire suppression priorities in 

sagebrush habitats. Incorporate fire management objectives for the management of sagebrush ecosystems into FMPs. Provide 

fire management objectives for sagebrush ecosystems to initial attack personnel at the beginning of each fire season.

4103 BR:10.1 Establish fuels treatment projects at strategic locations to minimize size of wildfires and limit loss of Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat.

4104 BR:10.1 Reintroduce appropriate fire regimes to limit conifer encroachment into the sagebrush plant communities. Take into account 

invasive herbaceous species and Fire Regime Group and FRCC (measure of departure from historic fire regime) with 

treatments. Where possible, achieve a balance between treating areas that have significantly departed from the historic fire 

regime (Condition Class 3) and areas that are functioning within an appropriate fire regime (Condition Class 1).

4105 BR:10.1 Remove conifers encroaching into sagebrush habitats in a manner that considers tribal and cultural values. Prioritize 

treatments closest to occupied Greater Sage-Grouse habitats and near occupied leks, and where juniper encroachment is 

phase 1 or phase 2 as defined in Miller et al. (2005). Refine the location of specific priority areas to be treated by utilizing 

site-specific analysis and principles like those included in the FIAT report (Chambers et. al. [2014]) and other ongoing 

modeling efforts to address conifer encroachment.

4106 BR:7.1-7.4 

BR:9.1

BR:9.2

Inside PHMAs

Prohibit surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities on or within a 0.6-mile radius of the perimeter of occupied 

Greater Sage-Grouse leks. The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmental record of review determines 

that the action, as proposed or conditioned, would not impair the function or utility of the site for the current or subsequent 

seasonal habitat, life-history, or behavioral needs of Greater Sage-Grouse (Map 3-17).

Outside PHMAs

Prohibit surface-disturbing and disruptive activities and apply a NSO restriction within a 1⁄4-mile radius of the perimeter of 

occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks (Map 3-17).

Outside Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs, the BLM’s goal is to sustain important habitats that support core populations and 

to maintain lek persistence over the long term in sufficient proportions of the Greater Sage-Grouse population to facilitate 

movement and genetic transfer between core populations, including those found in adjacent states.

Worland Approved RMP 85

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Special Status Species

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

4107 BR:7.2

BR:9.1

Inside PHMAs

Prohibit disruptive activities on or within a 0.6-mile radius of the perimeter of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks 

from March 15 to June 30 (81,281 acres).

Outside PHMAs

Prohibit disruptive activities on or within a 1⁄4 mile radius of the perimeter of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks from 

March 15 to June 30 (3,157 acres).

Inside PHMAs

Prohibit surface-disturbing and/or disruptive activities from March 15 to June 30 to protect Greater Sage-Grouse 

breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat (1,021,583 acres). Apply this timing limitation throughout the PHMAs. 

Activities in unsuitable habitats would be evaluated under the exception and modification criteria and could be allowed 

on a case-by-case basis.

Outside PHMAs

Prohibit surface-disturbing and/or disruptive activities in Greater Sage-Grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitat 

within a 2-mile radius of the perimeter of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks from March 15 to June 30.

Note: Where credible data support different timeframes for these seasonal restrictions, dates may be expanded by up to 14 

days prior to or subsequent to the above dates.

4108 BR:7.2

BR:9.1

Greater Sage-Grouse winter concentration areas:

Surface-disturbing and/or disruptive activities in sage-grouse winter concentration areas would be prohibited from December 

1–March 14. Activities in unsuitable habitats within PHMAs would be evaluated under the exception and modification 

criteria and could be allowed on a case-by-case basis. Protection of additional mapped winter concentration areas in 

GHMAs would be implemented only where winter concentration areas are identified as supporting biologically significant 

numbers of Greater Sage-Grouse nesting in PHMAs and/or attending leks within PHMAs. Appropriate seasonal timing 

restrictions and habitat protection measures would be considered and evaluated in consultation with the WGFD in all 

identified winter concentration areas.

Evaluate and allow activities in unsuitable habitats within PHMAs in accordance with exception and modification criteria on 

a case-by-case basis.

Protection of additional mapped winter concentration areas in GHMAs would be implemented only where winter 

concentration areas are identified as supporting biologically significant numbers of Greater Sage-Grouse nesting in PHMAs 

and/or attending leks within PHMAs. Appropriate seasonal timing restrictions and habitat protection measures would be 

considered and evaluated in consultation with the WGFD in all identified winter concentration areas.

86 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Special Status Species

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

4109 BR:7.2

BR:9.1

Density of Disturbances:

In PHMAs, the density of disturbance of energy or mining facilities would be limited to an average of one site per square 

mile (640 acres) within the DDCT, subject to valid existing rights (Appendix D, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management

Strategy (p. 271)). The one location and cumulative value of existing disturbances would not exceed 5 percent of habitat 

of the DDCT area. Inside PHMA, all suitable habitat disturbed (any program area) will not exceed 5 percent within the 

DDCT area using the DDCT process.

Consolidate anthropogenic features from development and transmission on the landscape. Allow on a case-by-case basis 

high profile structures within Greater Sage-Grouse nesting habitat.

Sagebrush Treatment: For vegetation treatments in sagebrush within PHMAs, refer to WGFD Protocols for Treating 

Sagebrush to Benefit Sage-Grouse (WGFD 2011, as updated) and BLM WO IM 2013-128 (Sage-grouse Conservation 

Related to Wildland Fire and Fuels Management). These recommended protocols, subject to seasonal conditions of approval, 

would be used in determining whether proposed treatment constitutes a “disturbance” that would contribute toward the

5 percent threshold for habitat maintenance.

Additionally, these protocols would be used to determine whether the proposed treatment configuration would be expected to 

have neutral or beneficial impacts for PHMA populations or if they represent additional habitat loss orfragmentation.

Treatments to enhance sagebrush/grasslands habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse would be evaluated based on habitat quality and 

the functionality/use of treated habitats post-treatment.

The BLM would work collaboratively with partners at the state and local levels to maintain and enhance Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitats.

Seasonal restrictions would be applied, as needed, for implementing fuels management treatments according to the type 

of seasonal habitat present.

Wildfire burns will be treated as disturbed if sagebrush is reduced below 5 percent unless there is an implementation plan 

outlining restoration efforts and 3 years of data showing a trend back to suitable habitat.

4110 BR:7.2

BR:9.1

New project noise levels, either individual or cumulative, should not exceed 10 dBA (as measured by L50) above baseline 

noise at the perimeter of the lek from 6:00 pm to 8:00 am during the breeding season (March 1 to May 15). Specific noise 

protocols for measurement and implementation will be developed as additional research and information emerges.

Worland Approved RMP 87

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Special Status Species

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

4111 BR:7.1-7.4 

BR:9.1

BR:9.2

Allow motorized vehicle use in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs consistent with other resource objectives.

Manage new road construction in and adjacent to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat consistent with applicable restrictions on 

surface-disturbing and disruptive activities. Avoid construction of new or local collector roads (as defined in BLM Manual 

9113 [BLM 2011d]) within 1.9 miles of the perimeter of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks within PHMAs.

Prohibit all new roads within 0.6 miles of the perimeter of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks within PHMAs. 

Construct roads to minimum design standards needed for production activities.

4112 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

In PHMAs, implement mitigation and minimization guidelines and required design features, including specific measures 

for Greater Sage-Grouse (refer to Appendix C, Required Design Features and Best Management Practices (p. 249)) as 

applicable and consistent with EO 2015–4 (Wyoming Office of the Governor 2015). Incorporate Greater Sage-Grouse 

specific measures into project proposals as required design features or mitigation for any authorized federal action, 

regardless of surface ownership.

4113 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

In PHMAs, require the development of a wildlife resource monitoring and mitigation plan to address potential impacts from 

mineral development on wildlife populations and/or habitat on a case-by-case basis.

4114 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Use the following travel management criteria in PHMAs:

● During subsequent travel management planning, all routes within PHMAs would undergo a route evaluation to determine 

its purpose and need and the potential resource and/or user conflicts from motorized travel. Where resource and/or user 

conflicts outweigh the purpose and need for the route, the route would be considered for closure or considered for 

relocation outside of sensitive Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.

● During implementation-level travel planning, threats to Greater Sage-Grouse and their habitat would be considered when 

evaluating route designations and/or closures.

● During subsequent travel management planning, routes within PHMAs that do not have a purpose or need would 

be considered for closure.

● During subsequent travel management planning, routes within PHMAs that are duplicative parallel, or redundant would 

be considered for closure.

● During subsequent travel management planning, OHV timing limitations would be considered in important seasonal 

habitats where OHV use is a threat.

● During subsequent travel management planning, consider limiting snow machine travel to designated routes or consider 

seasonal closures in Greater Sage-Grouse wintering areas from November 1 through March 31.

● During subsequent travel management planning, routes in PHMAs not required for public access or recreation with a 

current administrative/agency purpose or need would be evaluated for administrative access only.

● During subsequent travel management planning, prioritize restoration of routes not designated in a Travel Management 

Plan within PHMAs.

● During subsequent travel management planning, consider using seed mixes or transplant techniques that will maintain or 

enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitat when rehabilitating linear disturbances.

● During subsequent travel management planning, consider scheduling road maintenance to avoid disturbance during 

sensitive periods and times to the extent practicable. Use time of day limits (after 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM) to reduce impacts 

on Greater Sage-Grouse during breeding and nesting periods.

88 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Special Status Species

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

4115 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

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

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat will be addressed before consequences become severe or irreversible.

Adaptive management triggers are essential for identifying when potential management changes are needed in order to 

continue meeting Greater Sage-Grouse conservation objectives. With respect to Greater Sage-Grouse, all regulatory entities 

in Wyoming, including the BLM, use soft and hard triggers. Soft and hard triggers are focused on three metrics: 1) number 

of active leks, 2) acres of available habitat, and 3) population trends based on annual lek counts. See Appendix D, Greater

Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Strategy (p. 271) for more information on soft and hard triggers.

Soft Triggers Response:

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

action or that unanticipated changes to populations or habitats have occurred that have the potential to place habitats or 

populations at risk. The soft trigger is any deviation from normal trends in habitat or population in any given year. Metrics 

include, but are not limited to, annual lek counts, wing counts, aerial surveys, habitat monitoring, and DDCT evaluations. 

For population metrics, normal population trends are calculated as the 5-year running mean of annual population counts. 

BLM field offices, with the assistance of their respective land and RMP implementation groups, local WGFD offices, and 

local sage-grouse working groups will evaluate the metrics with the Adaptive Management Working Group on an annual 

basis. The purpose of these strategies is to address localized greater sage-grouse population and habitat changes by providing 

the framework in which management will change if monitoring identifies negative population and habitat anomalies in 

order to avoid crossing a hard trigger threshold.

Soft triggers require immediate monitoring and surveillance to determine causal factors and may require curtailment of 

activities in the short or long term, as allowed by law. The project level adaptive management strategies will identify 

appropriate responses where the project’s activities are identified as the causal factor. The management agency (BLM) and 

the Adaptive Management Work Group will implement an appropriate response strategy to address causal factors not 

attributable to a specific project or to make adjustments at a larger regional or statewide level.

Hard Trigger Response:

Hard triggers are indicators that management is not achieving desired conservation results. Hard triggers would be 

considered a catastrophic indicator that the species is not responding to conservation actions, or that a larger-scale impact 

or set of impacts is having a negative effect.

Within the range of normal population variables (5-year running mean of annual population counts), hard triggers shall 

be determined to take effect when two of the three metrics exceeds 60 percent of normal variability for the area under 

management in a single year, or when any of the three metrics exceeds 40 percent of normal variability for a 3 year time 

period within a 5-year range of analysis. A minimum of 3 consecutive years in a 5-year period is used to determine trends 

(i.e., years 1-2-3, years 2-3-4, years 3-4-5).

Worland Approved RMP 89

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Special Status Species

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

Upon determination that a hard trigger has been tripped, the BLM will immediately defer issuance of discretionary 

authorizations for new actions within the Biologically Significant Unit for a period of 90 days. In addition, within 14 days of 

a determination that a hard trigger has been tripped, the Adaptive Management Work Group will convene to develop an 

interim response strategy and initiate an assessment to determine the causal factor or factors (hereafter called the causal 

factor assessment).

In making amendments to this plan, the BLM will coordinate with the USFWS as BLM continues to meet its objective of 

protecting, restoring, and enhancing Greater Sage-Grouse habitat by reducing, minimizing or eliminating threats to that 

habitat.

The hard and soft trigger data will be analyzed as soon as it becomes available after the signing of the ROD and then 

at a minimum, analyzed annually thereafter.

Raptors

4116 BR:7.2

BR:7.6

Implement, where appropriate, conservation measures, terms and conditions, and appropriate BMPs and reasonable and 

prudent measures within existing state programmatic biological opinions for the bald eagle.

4117 BR:6.1 

BR:10.1

Work with proponents to design powerlines following USFWS guidelines to protect raptors from electrocution and to reduce 

predation on other special status species. Work with ROW holders to retrofit existing lines.

4118 BR:6.1 To protect nesting raptors, apply a TLS on 83,940 acres to prohibit surface-disturbing and disruptive activities within:

● 1⁄4 mile of active raptor nests and 1⁄2 mile of active golden eagle, bald eagle, northern goshawk, merlin, and prairie 

and peregrine falcon nests during specific species nesting period or until young birds have fledged (Map 3-17). See 

Appendix N, Seasonal Raptor Stipulations for All Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities (p. 561) for species 

nesting periods. 

● 1 mile of active ferruginous hawk nests from March 1 to July 31 or until young birds have fledged (Map 3-17).

To protect the actual nest site, apply a year-round CSU stipulation within 1⁄4 mile of all raptor nests (32,197 acres) (Map 3-17). 

Actual distances and dates will vary based on topography, species, season of use, and other pertinent factors.

Migratory Birds

4119 BR:7.1-7.4 

BR:10 

BR:11.1

Avoid taking migratory birds through timing limitations, project design modifications, pre-disturbance surveys and buffers. 

Direct impacts to migratory bird species or their nests/eggs/young can often be avoided by requiring pre-disturbance clearance 

surveys or using seasonal timing windows and nesting buffers to avoid disturbance during occupancy periods and minimizing 

habitat loss. USFWS identifies migratory bird nesting periods between February 1 and August 31 for species protected by 

MBTA. Seasonal timing limitations should be adjusted to shorter periods to match the habitat, species and condition of the 

project site. Migratory bird mortalities can also be avoided by including or requiring designs that exclude migratory birds 

from facilities that are known to pose a preventable mortality risk and marking structures that have known collisionrisks.

4120 BR:7.1

BR:7.2

Implement conservation measures, terms and conditions, and appropriate BMPs and reasonable and prudent measures within 

existing state programmatic biological opinions for the mountain plover.

Allow and stipulate, where feasible, vegetative treatments, invasive and nonnative pest species control, fuels management, 

and maintenance of existing facilities.

Mammals

90 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Special Status Species

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

4121 BR:7.1-7.4 Implement conservation measures, terms and conditions, and appropriate BMPs and reasonable and prudent measures within 

existing state programmatic biological opinions for the Canada lynx, gray wolf, and black-footed ferret.

4122 BR:7.1-7.4 Implement conservation measures, terms and conditions, BMPs, and reasonable and prudent measures within the existing 

state programmatic biological opinion for the grizzly bear and in accordance with the Interagency Grizzly Bear Conservation 

Strategy signed by the BLM in 2006.

4123 BR:7.1-7.4 If the USFWS and WGFD determine that large prairie dog colonies and/or complexes within the planning area are suitable 

for black-footed ferret reintroduction, apply an NSO restriction on these areas.

4124 BR:7.1-7.4 Implement, where appropriate, conservation measures, Biological Evaluations, and inter-agency coordination memorandums 

for all prairie dogs and prohibit prairie dog poisoning.

Fish

4125 BR:7.1-7.6 Give priority to special status species fish over other fish species in planning and management.

4126 BR:7.3 Restore or reclaim fisheries habitat with present or potential special status species fish populations through upland 

management and hydrologic function enhancement actions on a priority basis consistent with other resource uses.

4127 BR:7.1-7.3 

BR:7.6

On a priority basis, construct barriers to prevent nonnative fish from colonizing habitat occupied by native fish species. 

Remove barriers or construct fish passageways to enable native fish to occupy all suitable habitats.

4128 BR:7.1-7.3 

BR:7.6

Prohibit surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet and avoid surface-disturbing activities within 1⁄4 mile of perennial 

surface water and riparian/wetland areas except when their impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level.

4129 BR:7.1-7.3 

BR:7.6

Pursue coordination with WGFD and other stakeholders in restoring Yellowstone cutthroat trout to its historically occupied 

watersheds wherever feasible.

4130 BR:7.1-7.3 

BR:7.6

Work with WGFD and other stakeholders to introduce special status fish species to waters outside of their historic range on a

case-by-case basis.

Amphibians and Reptiles

4131 BR:7.1-7.4 Stipulate and/or implement the appropriate management guidelines identified in Habitat Management Guidelines for 

Amphibians and Reptiles of the Northwestern U.S. and Canada, PARC Technical Publication HMG-4 (Pilliod and Wind 

2008), and similar future guidance for activities that have the potential to impact known or potential amphibian/reptile habitat.

4132 BR:7.1-7.4 When cleaning or removing sediment from wet reservoirs, where feasible, retain riparian vegetation such as cottonwoods, 

willows, cattails, sedges, and rushes for wildlife habitat values. Avoid reservoir work during amphibian mating and 

metamorphosis periods (April – July).

Plants

4133 BR:8.2

BR:8.3

BR:8.5

Implement conservation measures, terms and conditions, and appropriate BMPs and reasonable and prudent measures within 

existing state programmatic biological opinions for the Ute ladies’-tresses.

4134 BR:8.1-8.3 

BR:8.5

Avoid range improvement projects that may concentrate herbivory within 1⁄4 mile of BLM special status plant species 

populations unless the project is determined to be beneficial or neutral to the plant species.

4135 BR:8.1-8.3 

BR:8.5

On a case-by-case basis, allow placement of forage supplements after considering the location of BLM special status 

plant species.

4136 BR:8.1-8.3 

BR:8.5

Review all federal actions and authorizations for potential impacts to BLM special status plant species. Implement avoidance, 

mitigation or compensation measures in coordination with surface owners on split-estate.

Worland Approved RMP 91

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Special Status Species

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

4137 BR:8.2-8.4 Avoid aerial applications of herbicides within 1⁄2 mile of BLM special status plant species. Allow vehicle and hand 

application of herbicides.

4138 BR:8.5 Allow the application of fire suppression chemicals within 1⁄4 mile of known/documented populations of BLM special status 

plant species with the consent of the authorized officer.

92 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.14. 4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Wild Horses

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Wild Horses

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL BR:11 Manage and maintain healthy wild horses and herds inside HMAs in a thriving natural ecological balance 

within the productive capacity of their habitat while preserving multiple use relationships.

Objectives:

BR:11.1 Adjust and maintain wild horse numbers and HMAs to comply with federal policies.

BR:11.2 Maintain or enhance herd viability and genetic integrity.

BR:11.3 Provide opportunities for wild horse interpretation, scientific research, and viewing.

BR:11.4 Manage wild horses to comply with local planning documents to the greatest extent practicable.

4139 BR:11.1 The size of the Fifteenmile HMA (Map 3-18) will remain at 70,527 acres of BLM-administered land, out of the original 

261,868 acres of BLM-administered land within the Fifteenmile HA.

4140 BR:11.1

The Sand Draw HA is 15,302 acres (total acres in planning area, including BLM-administered, BOR, state, and private lands).

The Zimmerman Springs HA is 12,277 acres (total acres in planning area, including BLM-administered, BOR, state, 

and private lands).

The Alkali Spring Creek HA is 5,183 acres (total acres in planning area, including BLM-administered, BOR, state, and 

private lands).

These HAs (Map 3-18) will not be managed for wild horses.

4141 BR:11.1 Manage the Fifteenmile HMA for an initial appropriate management level of 70 to 160 wild horses, not counting foals, in an 

attempt to maintain a population of 100 adult wild horses adjusted as necessary based upon monitoring.

4142 BR:11.1 Base future adjustments to the appropriate management level on monitoring information and multiple use considerations 

through development of and/or revisions to HMA Plans. Update HMA plans to include Greater Sage-Grouse objectives.

4143 BR:11.1 Manage BLM-administered land within the Fifteenmile HMA to maintain or enhance conformance with the Wyoming 

Standards for Healthy Rangelands.

4144 BR:11.2 Employ selective removal criteria, in accordance with current national policies, during periodic gathers to increase desired 

genetic characteristics and avoid genetic depression.

4145 BR:11.1 Consider the use of natural and artificial population control measures as needed to maintain the wild horse populations 

within the established appropriate management level ranges.

4146 BR:11.1 Conduct all activities in compliance with relevant court orders and agreements as applicable to the management situation.

4147 BR:11.3 Do not actively promote the Fifteenmile HMA to the public and retain the current remote natural characteristics.

4148 BR:11.1 Apply seasonal restrictions from February 1 to July 31 to prevent foal abandonment or jeopardy of wild horse health and 

welfare, as appropriate, to surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in the Fifteenmile HMA.

Worland Approved RMP 93

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – Wild Horses

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

4149 BR:11.3 Avoid and discourage organized special recreation permits using domestic horses in the Fifteenmile HMA.

4150 BR:11.1 Avoid wild horse gathers 6-weeks before or 6-weeks after peak foaling season. To the extent possible, conduct wild horse 

gathers in the fall, after peak foaling has occurred and when temperatures are lower to reduce stress on the animals.

94 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.15. 5000 HERITAGE AND VISUAL RESOURCES (HR) – Cultural Resources

5000 HERITAGE AND VISUAL RESOURCES (HR) – Cultural Resources

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL HR:1 Identify, preserve, and protect cultural resources and ensure that they are available for appropriate uses by 

present and future generations (FLPMA, Section 103(c), 201(a) and (c); National Historic Preservation Act, Section 110(a); 

Archeological Resources Protection Act, Section 14(a)).

Objectives:

HR:1.1 Manage each type of cultural resource according to their proper use allocation, and monitor those resources’ 

condition and use.

HR:1.2 Reduce imminent threats to cultural resources from natural or human-caused deterioration.

HR:1.3 Develop and maintain working relationships with those tribes having an interest in the area through regular meetings. 

Consult with tribal governments regarding proposed land uses having the potential to impact cultural resources identified as 

having tribal interests or concerns. Determine the types of resources of concern to various tribes, and take tribal views into 

consideration when making land use allocations or decisions.

HR:1.4 Develop activity plans for special areas or cultural resources identified as high risk for adverse impacts.

GOAL HR:2 Promote stewardship, conservation, and appreciation of cultural resources.

Objectives:

HR:2.1 Maintain and enhance programs that provide opportunities for scientific research of cultural resources.

HR:2.2 Provide opportunities for public education, interpretation, and scientific research of cultural resources. Continue 

Project Archeology teaching courses, and continue to conduct public presentations for schools, community organizations, 

and the public. Provide for appropriate interpretation of sites of high public interest. Provide selected cultural resources for 

scientific research.

HR:2.3 Coordinate with other BLM programs preplanning measures to prevent potential conflicts before they occur.

GOAL HR:3 Protect important cultural resources while minimizing economic and social impacts to private landowners and 

local communities.

Objectives:

HR:3.1 Consult and coordinate with affected landowners and local communities when devising protection measures for 

cultural resources.

HR:3.2 Consult and coordinate with affected landowners and local communities when devising recreational use plans for 

cultural resources.

HR:3.3 Preserve and stabilize important cultural resources, especially resources that face immediate threat or are in high 

public use areas.

Worland Approved RMP 95

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
5000 HERITAGE AND VISUAL RESOURCES (HR) – Cultural Resources

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

5001 HR:1.2 Investigate all alleged violations of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act.

5002 HR:1.1 Categorize all cultural properties according to six use allocations: scientific use, conservation use, public use, traditional 

use, experimental use, and discharged from public use. Develop programmatic guidance for the first five categories of use 

that promote appropriate educational, recreational, and scientific interpretive use. Through the NEPA process, develop 

appropriate management prescriptions and monitoring plans to protect the identified use.

5003 HR:1.4 Complete emergency site stabilization and long-term protection projects on important sites as appropriate, including the 

Hanson Site and several rock art occurrences.

5004 HR:1.3 Continue existing relationships and develop new relationships with Native American tribes, in order to identify sites, 

areas, and resources important to them. Document and keep confidential sites, areas, and resources which are worthy of 

protection. Incorporate the information obtained from the tribes into the planning system, to identify conflicts in theearliest 

stages, and to avoid conflicts whenever possible. Manage identified areas of tribal importance to minimize disturbance to 

them and to ensure continued access.

5005 HR:1.3 Ensure that areas of importance to Native American Tribes are not transferred from federal ownership, physically modified, 

or affected by management actions in ways that restrict or deny access and/or use.

5006 HR:1.1-1.4 

HR:2.3

Appropriately protect sites listed on the NRHP. Protect and manage sites that are eligible for or listed on the NRHP. Manage 

sites allocated for conservation, traditional use, or public use to avoid adverse effects; manage sites allocated for scientific or 

experimental use for their research potential. Protect and manage National Historic Landmarks through management of

non‐compatible uses.

5007 HR:1.4 Identify areas ofsignificant prehistoric cultural resources, which are at high risk from development, as data becomes available.

5008 HR:1.1

HR:2.3

Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended, the National Programmatic Agreement 

(BLM, ACHP, and National Conference of SHPO 2012), and the State Protocol (BLM and Wyoming SHPO 2014),

case-by-case reviews for specific undertakings require analysis and assessments of effects. Such analysis and assessment 

may reveal the need for additional restrictions beyond those specifically described in this RMP.

5009 HR:1.1-1.4

HR:2.1-2.3

HR:3.1-3.3

In cooperation with local government and stakeholders, consider the economic and social impacts of protecting cultural 

resources.

5010 HR:3.1 Coordinate with affected landowners, local communities, and agencies on any decisions that could affect their use or 

operations. Consistent with cultural resource protection goals and objectives, devise management actions that complement 

the objectives of private landowners or local communities.

5011 HR:1.3 Inventory potentially sensitive cultural places identified during Native American consultation independent of specific 

land-use actions. Apply tools (such as site avoidance and SCZ to protect sensitive cultural sites, as necessary.

5012 HR:1.4 

HR:2.1-2.3

HR:3.1-3.3

Prepare Activity Plans for important sites as appropriate, including the several rock art occurrences, Ten Sleep Raid, Minick 

Sheep Camp Raid, and historic trails including the Bridger Trail, and the Fort Washakie to Red Lodge stage route.

5013 HR:1.1-1.4 

HR:2.3

Manage the Legend Rock Petroglyph Site for public education in cooperation with the State of Wyoming. Work to acquire 

the private land portions of the Legend Rock Petroglyph Site from willing landowners, preferably through an exchange.

5014 HR:3.3 Apply an NSO restriction on the Legend Rock Petroglyph Site.

96 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
5000 HERITAGE AND VISUAL RESOURCES (HR) – Cultural Resources

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

5015 HR:1.1-1.4

HR:2.1-2.3

HR:3.1-3.3

Surface-disturbing activities associated with the construction and use of sites and facilities are subject to appropriate 

mitigation developed through implementation of the National Programmatic Agreement (BLM, ACHP, and National 

Conference of SHPOs 2012) and the State Protocol (BLM and Wyoming SHPO 2014).

5016 HR:1.2 For the protection of important cultural sites, pursue a withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws on a 

case-by-case basis.

5017 HR:2.2 Develop additional cultural resource interpretive sites making use of scenic overlooks, signs, and walking trails. Sites could 

include historic trails such as the Thermopolis to Meeteetse Trail, the Fort Washakie to Red Lodge Trail, the Mexican

Pass Trail, and the Bridger Trail.

5018 HR:1.2

HR:3.3

Motorized vehicle use is limited to designated roads and trails in areas containing important cultural and paleontological 

resources.

5019 HR:1.1-1.4 

HR:2.3

Manage rock art, as well as other prehistoric and historic archeological sites and districts associated with specific time periods 

or cultures, for scientific, public, and socio-cultural use. Manage general areas for research, with emphasis on interpreting 

former ecosystems. Preserve specific sites or areas for future study and use. Avoid surface-disturbing activities and protect 

the foreground of important cultural sites (see Glossary for definitions of these terms) up to 3 miles or the visual horizon,

whichever is closer (the SCZ), where setting is an important aspect of the integrity for the site. Use BMPs (Appendix C,

Required Design Features and Best Management Practices (p. 249)) to avoid, minimize and/or compensate adverse effects.

5020 HR:1.2 Protect the foreground of important cultural sites (see Glossary for definitions of these terms) up to 3 miles or the visual 

horizon whichever is closer (the SCZ) where setting is an important aspect of the integrity for the site. Use BMPs 

(Appendix C, Required Design Features and Best Management Practices (p. 249)) to avoid, minimize and/or compensate 

adverse effects.

5021 HR:1.2 Avoid surface-disturbing activities and protect the foreground of important cultural sites (see Glossary for definitions of 

these terms) up to 3 miles or the visual horizon, whichever is closer (the SCZ) where setting is an important aspect of the 

integrity for the site. Use BMPs (Appendix C, Required Design Features and Best Management Practices (p. 249)) to avoid, 

minimize and/or compensate adverse effects.

5022 HR:1.1

HR:1.3

Avoid surface-disturbing activities and protect the foreground of important cultural sites (see Glossary for definitions of 

these terms) up to 3 miles or the visual horizon, whichever is closer (the SCZ) where setting is an important aspect of the 

integrity for the site. Use BMPs (Appendix C, Required Design Features and Best Management Practices (p. 249)) to avoid, 

minimize and/or compensate adverse effects and manage these areas as renewable energy avoidance areas.

5023 HR:1.1-1.4 

HR:2.3

Manage portions of the town of Gebo and adjacent coal mining areas on BLM-administered land for preservation and 

interpretation of cultural and historic values.

5024 HR:1.1-1.4 

HR:2.3

Manage historic resources in oil and gas fields for scientific and public use. Include the following fields: Hamilton Dome, 

Grass Creek, Little Buffalo Basin, Walker Dome, Enos Creek, Golden Eagle, Gooseberry, Hidden Dome, Little Grass Creek, 

and Gebo. Include the installation of interpretive signs where fields can be safely viewed.

5025 HR:3.3 Motorized vehicle use is limited to existing roads and trails, except where other resources impose more restrictive conditions, 

on BLM-administered land along the Bighorn Slope, Bridger, Owl Creek, and Absaroka Foothills to manage (minimize 

issues such as looting) for cultural and paleontological resources.

Worland Approved RMP 97

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.16. 5000 HERITAGE AND VISUAL RESOURCES (HR) – Paleontological Resources 

5000 HERITAGE AND VISUAL RESOURCES (HR) – Paleontological Resources

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL HR:4 Manage, preserve, and protect paleontological resources and areas on BLM-administered land in the 

planning area.

Objectives:

HR:4.1 Reduce threats to paleontological resources from natural or human-caused deterioration.

HR:4.2 Implement the PFYC as a standard part of review for all surface-disturbing activities in the planning area.

GOAL HR:5 Promote and enhance scientific knowledge of paleontological resources in the planning area.

Objectives:

HR:5.1 Provide paleontological research opportunities for qualified scientists/academia on public lands within the planning 

area in conjunction with the Wyoming State Office Paleontologist, implementing the paleontology permitting program.

HR:5.2 Provide opportunities for research projects relative to paleoclimate studies in the planning area.

GOAL HR:6 Promote and implement stewardship, conservation, and appreciation of paleontological resources in the 

planning area.

Objectives:

HR:6.1 Provide opportunities for the public to enjoy limited recreational collection of common invertebrate and plant fossils 

in portions of the planning area.

HR:6.2 Develop interpretive areas relative to paleontological resources.

5026 HR:4.1 Enlist assistance of permittees, consultants, and the interested public in preventing theft, trespass, and vandalism of 

paleontological resources.

5027 HR:4.2 Protect vertebrate and scientifically significant paleontological resources on BLM-administered land from proposed 

surface-disturbing activities that could damage or destroy these resources.

5028 HR:4.1 Avoid surface-disturbing activitiesin areasin the immediate vicinity ofscientifically significant paleontological resource sites.

5029 HR:4 Avoid adverse effects on resource values to sites listed in National Park Service inventories of possible National Natural 

Landmarks.

5030 HR:5.1 Manage scientifically significant paleontological resources for scientific and public use.

5031 HR:4.1 Standard stipulations for paleontological resources permits include protection of cultural resources, human remains, and 

potential areas of concern to Native Americans.

98 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
5000 HERITAGE AND VISUAL RESOURCES (HR) – Paleontological Resources

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

5032 HR:6.1 Provide opportunities for the public to enjoy limited recreational collection of common invertebrate and plant fossils 

in portions of the planning area.

5033 HR:6.1 Allow for personal casual-use collection of common invertebrate or plant fossils in reasonable quantities on 

BLM-administered land.

5034 HR:4.1 Close or restrict uses upon discovery of vertebrate or scientifically significant paleontological resources on a case-by-case 

basis.

5035 HR:5.1 Recommend application of Standard Terms and Conditions (see Glossary) for Paleontological Resources Excavation 

permits, issued by the State Office, to address:

1. Permit assignment

2. Approved timeframes for the permit

3. Costs

4. Access

5. Ownership of the paleontological resources

6. Removal of stakes, flagging, or other site identification materials

7. Citing in reports

8. Restoration of surface disturbance

9. Reports

10. Stipulations regarding cultural resources, human remains, or areas of religious or cultural concern to Native Americans

Law Enforcement/Protection

5036 HR:4.1 Protect areas with vertebrate or other scientifically significant paleontological resources that are at risk for damage from 

illegal activities, including theft and vandalism.

5037 HR:4.2 Implement the PFYC system (Map 3-19) as a standard part of review for all surface-disturbing activities in the planning 

area (see Glossary).

5038 HR:4.1

HR:4.2

Require an on-the-ground survey prior to approval of a surface-disturbing activity or land-disposal action, and monitor 

surface-disturbing activities for all PFYC 4 and 5 formations. PFYC 3 formations may or may not require a survey prior to 

approval of these actions.

5039 HR:4.2 Attach standard Paleontological Resources Protection Stipulations (see Glossary) to authorizations for surface-disturbing 

activities in all areas, regardless of PFYC (i.e., 1 through 5).

5040 HR:4.1 Within 100 feet of a paleontological discovery, prohibit the resumption of activity until written authorization to proceed 

is issued by the authorized officer.

5041 HR:4.1 Allow surface-disturbing activities within at least 100 feet of the outer edge of the paleontological locality if the impacts can 

be adequately mitigated.

5042 HR:4.1 Retain BLM-administered land having vertebrate or other scientifically significant paleontological resources.

Pursue opportunities to acquire private lands with vertebrate or other scientifically significant paleontological resources and 

values adjacent to public lands for protection, via exchange, purchase, or donation on a willing seller, willing buyer basis.

5043 HR:5.1

HR:5.2

Encourage paleontological research opportunities for qualified scientists/academia on BLM-administered land within the 

planning area in conjunction with the Wyoming State Office Paleontologist implementing the paleontology permitting 

program.

Worland Approved RMP 99

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
5000 HERITAGE AND VISUAL RESOURCES (HR) – Paleontological Resources

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

Education & Interpretation

5044 HR:6.1 Do not specifically identify areas for casual use collection of common invertebrate or plant fossils by the public.

5045 HR:6.2 Consider development of additional paleontological interpretive areas on a case-by-case basis.

100 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.17. 5000 HERITAGE AND VISUAL RESOURCES (HR) – Visual Resource Management

5000 HERITAGE AND VISUAL RESOURCES (HR) – Visual Resource Management

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL HR:7 Maintain the overall scenic (visual) quality of BLM-administered land where consistent with resource values.

Objectives:

HR:7.1 Class 1 Objective: Preserve the existing character of the landscape. Provide for natural ecological changes; however, 

preserving the landscape will not preclude very limited management activity. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape will be very low and will not attract attention.

HR:7.2 Class 2 Objective: Retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape will be low. Management activities may be seen, but will not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any 

changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of the 

characteristic landscape.

HR:7.3 Class 3 Objective: Partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape will be moderate. Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual 

observer. Changes will repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

HR:7.4 Class 4 Objective: Provide for management activities which require major modification to the existing characterof 

the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. These management activities may dominate 

the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt will be made to minimize the impact of these 

activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements.

5046 HR:7 Manage visual resources in accordance with VRM class objectives.

5047 HR:7 Meet the VRM objectives before authorizing land uses that may affect the visual character of the landscape.

5048 HR:7 Allow surface-disturbing activities in areas managed as VRM Class II only if the level of change to the landscape from 

the activities are low, and will not attract the attention of the casual observer, or the project can be mitigated to meet 

these objectives.

5049 HR:7.1 Manage WSAs under VRM Class I objectives.

5050 HR:7 VRM class allocations for BLM-administered surface lands (Map 3-20) are as follows:

● Class I – 116,434 acres (5.5%)

● Class II – 378,514 acres (18.0%)

● Class III – 484,714 acres (23.1%)

● Class IV – 1,125,414 acres (53.6%)

5051 HR:7.1-7.3 The project proponent must complete VRM contrast rating worksheets for all proposed actions in areas managed as VRM 

Classes I or II and for all projects with a high degree of visual impact.

5052 HR:7.1-7.3 The project proponent may be required to submit visual simulations on a case-by case-basis.

Worland Approved RMP 101

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
5000 HERITAGE AND VISUAL RESOURCES (HR) – Visual Resource Management

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

5053 HR:7.1

HR:7.2

Work with willing landowners and partners to pursue conservation easements on lands adjacent to areas managed as VRM 

Classes I and II on a case-by-case basis.

5054 HR:7 Motorized vehicle use is not limited by VRM Classes.

102 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.18. 6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Lands and Realty

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Lands and Realty

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL LR:1 Manage the acquisition, disposal, withdrawal, and use of public lands to meet the needs of internal and 

external customers and to preserve important resource values.

Objectives:

LR:1.1 Develop and maintain a land-ownership pattern that will provide access for managing and protecting public lands.

LR:1.2 Use appropriate actions such as disposal and acquisition to resolve issues related to intermixed land-ownership 

patterns and to acquire non-federal land having high resource/recreation value(s).

LR:1.3 Maintain availability of public lands to meet the habitation, trade, mineral development, recreation, and 

manufacturing needs of external customers and the general public.

LR:1.4 Utilize withdrawals to meet resource protection needs.

LR:1.5 Effects of infrastructure projects, including siting, will be minimized using the best available science, updated as 

monitoring information on current infrastructure projects becomes available.

6001 LR:1.1

LR:1.3

Consider land use authorizations (permits, leases, etc.) on a case-by-case basis consistent with other resource objectives. Do 

not classify, open, or make available any BLM-administered lands for agricultural leasing or agricultural entry under the 

Desert Land Act that meet one or more of the following criteria: unsuitable topography, presence of sensitive resources or 

resource conflicts, lack of water or access, small parcel size, or unsuitable soils.

6002 LR:1.4 When supported by RMP decisions to protect or manage other resources, pursue newly proposed BLM protective 

withdrawals and other agency withdrawal requests on a case-by-case basis.

6003 LR:1.3

LR:1.4

Retain all public water reserve withdrawals, except where no longer needed.

6004 LR:1.3

LR:1.4

Review of 1,076 acres of BLM-administered power withdrawals and classifications within the planning area.

6005 LR:1.3

LR:1.4

Continue existing classifications/segregations unless no longer needed.

6006 LR:1.1

LR:1.3

Manage lands and/or interests in lands acquired, and former withdrawn lands relinquished, in a manner consistent with 

adjacent or nearby BLM-administered land including surface and mineral estate management and pursuing withdrawals 

as appropriate. Subject to further NEPA analysis, where there is a reversionary interest, land may be disposed where 

the land is not suitable for return to the public domain.

6007 LR:1.1-1.3 Acquire private or state lands or interest in land from willing sellers on a case-by-case basis to consolidate land ownership 

and enhance the ability to manage important recreation opportunities and wildlife habitats such as migration corridors, crucial 

big game habitat, and riparian/wetland areas. Except for lands acquired using monies from the Westside Irrigation project 

conveyance described below, exchange is the preferred method of acquisition.

Worland Approved RMP 103

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Lands and Realty

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

6008 LR:1.1-1.3 Convey all right, title, and interest (excluding federal mineral interest) in a parcel of public land located in Big Horn County 

and Washakie County, comprising approximately 16,122 acres, after completion of an environmental analysis under NEPA. 

Acreage may be added to or subtracted from the land to be conveyed as necessary to satisfy any mitigation requirements 

under NEPA consistent with resource considerations. Conveyance is to be made to the Westside Irrigation District at current 

appraised value. Lands within the boundary of the project which are not conveyed under the final decision for this transfer, 

will be retained in federal ownership, and not available for other disposal actions. Monies paid for Westside Irrigation project 

lands will be used to acquire lands, also within the Bighorn Basin, with priority purchases defined by BLM in cooperation 

with stakeholder agencies (WGFD and SHPO).

6009 LR:1.1

LR:1.2

Unauthorized use (trespass) on public land will be investigated and resolved on a priority basis. Resolution may include 

requiring the trespassing party to remove the trespass and restore public lands. Resolution for inadvertent trespass, and 

especially for long-term, unknowing trespass, may include the sale or exchange of lands at fair market value to the 

trespassing party, or by modified competitive sale. In the interim, until a decision is made, continued use may be authorized, 

if determined to be in the public interest. If disposal is selected to resolve the trespass, and the disposal method is to be a 

FLPMA sale, the parcel size would be the smallest affected parcel, and in accordance with policy.

6010 LR:1.3 Consider access easements (including acquisition and exchange) across private lands for access to BLM-administered land. 

See Appendix I, Land Disposal and Acquisition (p. 379) for a list of general areas of interest for easement acquisition 

based on recreation needs.

6011 LR:1.1-1.3 Consider classifications for Recreation and Public Purpose lease and conveyance of BLM-administered land on a 

case-by-case basis.

6012 LR:1 Retain classification of BLM-administered lands to the south and east of the Worland landfill.

6013 LR:1.1

LR:1.3

Consider R&PP Act applications from qualified applicants on a case-by-case basis.

NOTE: The entire planning area is open to applications for conveyances to qualified applicants under the Recreation and 

Public Purpose Act.

Retention, Disposal, and Acquisition

104 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Lands and Realty

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

6014 LR:1.1

LR:1.2

LR:1.5

The Secretary's policy is, generally, not to dispose of public lands. However, FLPMA Sections 201 & 202 state the 

Secretary shall 'prepare and maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public lands and their resource and other 

values...' and '...develop, maintain, and, when appropriate, revise land use plans which provide by tracts or areas for the use 

of the public lands', respectively. Therefore, as mandated by FLPMA Sections 201 & 202, the following tract(s) of public 

land have been found to meet criteria for disposal in FLPMA Section 203 (Sales) and/or FLPMA Section 206 (Exchanges) 

during this land use planning effort (Appendix I, Land Disposal and Acquisition (p. 379); Map 3-21. The identification of a 

public land tract as having met FLPMA criteria for disposal is NOT, in itself, a decision to dispose of public lands. The 

process for disposing of public lands via FLPMA Section 203 or Section 206 is a lengthy multi-decisional process 

requiring a comprehensive site-specific analysis, survey, and follow-on decisions prior to a final decision being made by 

the Department of Interior. 

Disposal can include none, some, or all of the mineral estate as allowed by 43 CFR 2720 and FLPMA Section 209(b)(1). A 

mineral potential report would determine if a surface estate disposal includes none, some, or all of the mineral estate. (Map 

3-21)

Lands classified as PHMAs and GHMAs for Greater Sage-Grouse will be retained in federal management unless: (1) the 

agency can demonstrate that disposal of the lands, including land exchanges, will provide a net conservation gain to the 

Greater Sage-Grouse or (2) the agency can demonstrate that the disposal of the lands, including land exchanges, will have no 

direct or indirect adverse impact on conservation of the Greater Sage-Grouse. Consider exceptions where there is mixed 

ownership. Allow land exchanges for additional or more contiguous federal ownership patterns within PHMAs.

For PHMAs with minority federal ownership, include an additional, effective mitigation agreement for any disposal of 

federal land. Consider pursuing a permanent conservation easement as a final preservation measure.

For lands in GHMAs that are identified for disposal, the BLM will only dispose of such lands consistent with the goals and 

objectives of this plan, including, but not limited to, the land use plan objective to maintain or increase Greater Sage-Grouse 

abundance and distribution.

Note: All land actions to acquire or dispose of lands would require a site specific analysis under NEPA.

Land Use Classifications1

6015 LR:1.3 Consider DLE applications for unclassified lands on a case-by-case basis subject to DLE criteria (43 CFR §2520).

Withdrawals

6016 LR:1.4 Withdraw 25,348 acres in the planning area (Map 3-4).

Worland Approved RMP 105

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.19. 6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Renewable Energy

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Renewable Energy

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL LR:2 Manage and provide opportunities for appropriate renewable energy facilities on public lands.

Objectives:

LR:2.1 Make lands available for renewable energy development consistent with goals and objectives of other resources.

LR:2.2 In cooperation with project proponents, promote and enhance scientific knowledge of renewable energy resources 

in the planning area (Map 3-22).

6017 LR:2.1

LR:2.2

Programmatic policies and BMPs for wind-energy development are identified in the Record of Decision for Implementation 

of a Wind Energy Development Program and Associated Land Use Plan Amendments (BLM 2005b) and IM 2009-043.

6018 LR:2.1 Consider authorization of renewable energy projects consistent with the management of other resource values.

6019 LR:2.1 Initiate government-to-government consultation with the appropriate Tribal governments if it is determined that renewable 

energy development proposals might directly and substantially affect the Tribe.

6020 LR:2.1 The planning area is open to renewable energy development unless managed as renewable energy or ROW exclusion or 

avoidance areas to meet other resource objectives (Map 3-23).

A total of 805,384 acres is open to renewable energy development. 

Manage a total of 1,047,113 acres as renewable energy avoidance areas. 

Manage a total of 248,381 acres as renewable energy exclusion areas. 

Geothermal resources are discussed in the minerals section.

106 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.20. 6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Rights-of-Way and Corridors 

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Rights-of-Way and Corridors

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL LR:3 Manage public lands to meet transportation and ROW needs consistent with goals and objectives of other 

resources.

Objectives:

LR:3.1 Provide opportunities to meet ROW demands while protecting important resources.

LR:3.2 Maintain and acquire appropriate ingress, egress, and access routes across state/private lands to BLM-administered 

land for recreational opportunities and management of public land resources.

LR:3.3 Maintain a transportation management system in cooperation with appropriate state and local agencies to meet public 

and resource management needs.

6021 LR:3.1 In accordance with the Record of Decision for Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Designation of Energy 

Corridors on Federal Land in the 11 Western States (DOE and BLM 2008), designate energy corridor 79-216 in the 

planning area.

6022 LR:3.1 Develop communication site management plans for all communication site concentration areas (Map 3-24).

6023 LR:3.1

LR:3.3

The preferred location of new ROW will be in or adjacent to existing disturbed areas associated with existing ROW or high 

traffic gravel roads or highways, where possible.

6024 LR:3.1 Avoid ROW authorizations in areas having a 25 percent or greater average slope (Map 3-25).

6025 LR:3.1 Provide reasonable access across BLM-administered land to private land, subject to other resource concerns.

6026 LR:3.1

LR:3.2

Acquire and maintain access easements to BLM-administered land across private/state lands from willing sellers on a 

case-by-case basis to meet other resource needs.

6027 LR:3.1 Authorize communication site facilities on a case-by-case basis. Encourage development within designated areas. Co-locate 

new communication sites where possible.

Worland Approved RMP 107

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Rights-of-Way and Corridors

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

6028 LR:3.1 Designate ROW corridors as shown on Map 3-24. PHMAs are designated as avoidance areas for high voltage transmission 

line and pipeline ROWs. For the safe administration of infrastructure there is no width restriction on ROW corridors; 

however, all authorizations in these areas must comply with the conservation measures outlined in this Approved RMP, 

including the RDFs and avoidance criteria presented in Appendix C, Required Design Features and Best Management 

Practices (p. 249)..

Within PHMAs:

New Transmission Lines (greater than 115 kV):

Allow new transmission lines greater than 115 kV in PHMA only (1) when located within 0.5 miles or less of an existing 115 

kV or greater transmission lines constructed prior to 2008; or (2) in designated RMP corridors authorized for aboveground 

transmission lines. Do not count transmission lines routed using one or more of the two criteria listed above against the 

DDCT 5 percent disturbance cap.

Consider new transmission lines greater than 115 kV proposed outside of these areas where it can be demonstrated that 

declines in Greater Sage-Grouse populations could be avoided through project design and/or mitigation. These projects will 

be subject to the density and disturbance restrictions for PHMAs.

Incorporate the Framework for Sage-grouse Impact Analysis for Interstate Transmission Lines (BLM 2012b) and other 

appropriate documents into the review of transmission line proposals, consistent with the three routing criteria described 

above.

For new projects within PHMAs that may require future utility lines, including distribution and transmission lines or 

pipelines, include the proposed utility lines in their DDCT as part of the proposed disturbance. Count lines permitted, but not 

located in the above mentioned routes or a designated corridor, toward the 5 percent disturbance calculation (line distance is 

equal to the anticipated construction footprint or construction ROW width multiplied by length and includes all access roads, 

staging area, and other surface disturbance associated with construction outside of the construction ROW).

New Electric Distribution Lines (less than 115 kV):

Require burial of new electric distribution lines where economically feasible. If not economically feasible, distribution lines 

may be authorized when effectively designed/mitigated to protect Greater Sage-Grouse and when the authorized officer 

determines that overhead installation is the action alternative with the fewest adverse impacts while still meeting the 

project need. Consider agricultural and residential distribution lines to be adequately mitigated for Greater Sage-Grouse if 

constructed at least 0.6 mile from the lek perimeter with appropriate timing constraints and constructed to the latest APLIC 

standards. These ROW authorizations will be subject to approval by the State Director.

108 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Rights-of-Way and Corridors

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

Pipelines:

Allow new pipelines through PHMAs: (1) within an RMP corridor currently authorized for that use or designated through 

future RMP amendments; or (2) constructed in or adjacent to existing utilities (buried and aboveground) or roads. Pipelines 

constructed in RMP corridors or adjacent to existing utilities or roads will require completion of a DDCT analysis for 

baseline data collection, but the project is not required to meet the threshold of 5 percent. However, within 6 months of the

completion of construction, the project proponent will provide the authorized officer with as-built drawings so that the total 

disturbance within PHMAs can be calculated annually.

6029 LR:3.1 Manage 932,940 acres as ROW avoidance areas (Map 3-24).

Manage PHMAs as ROW avoidance areas for new ROW or SUA permits (799,391 acres). Within PHMAs where new 

ROWs/SUAs are necessary, locate new ROWs/SUAs within designated RMP corridors or adjacent to existing ROWs/SUAs 

where technically feasible. Subject to valid existing rights, including non-federal land inholdings, locate new, required 

ROWs/SUAs adjacent to existing ROWs/SUAs or where impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse are minimized.

Work with proponents to design ROW applications to protect Greater Sage-Grouse.

6030 LR:3.1 Manage 111,790 acres as ROW exclusion areas (Map 3-24).

6031 LR:3 

LR:3.3

Consider night skies in evaluation of ROW applications and apply BMPs as appropriate.

Worland Approved RMP 109

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.21. 6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL LR:4 Utilize a comprehensive approach to travel planning and management to sustain and enhance use.

Objectives:

LR:4.1 All BLM-administered lands will be classified as open, limited, or closed to motorized travel in consideration of 

other resource program goals and objectives, primary travelers, objectives for allowing travel in the area, setting (recreation, 

visual, archeological) characteristics that are to be maintained, and primary means of travel.

LR:4.2 Integrate concepts of habitat connectivity into OHV planning to minimize habitat fragmentation.

LR:4.3 Manage OHV use by type, season, intensity, distribution, and/or duration to minimize the impact on plant and 

wildlife habitats. If seasonal closures become appropriate to minimize adverse OHV impact(s) on public lands resources, 

strive to preserve public access by designating alternative routes.

GOAL LR:5 Manage the use of OHVs in partnership with other land-management agencies, local governments, 

communities, and stakeholders.

Objectives:

LR:5.1 Pursue the acquisition of resources for implementing transportation and travel management.

LR:5.2 Coordinate public outreach efforts when implementing travel management decisions.

GOAL LR:6 Utilize adaptive trails and travel management to protect public land natural resources and settings, promote 

safety for all public land users, and minimize conflicts among OHV users and various other uses of public lands.

Objectives:

LR:6.1 Promote responsible‐use recreational opportunities and experiences, visitor access/safety, and resource conservation 

and education.

LR:6.2 Promote trail etiquette, environmental ethics, and a responsible‐use stewardship ethic (e.g., tread lightly, leave no 

trace).

LR:6.3 Promote user safety and minimize user conflict.

6032 LR:4.1 Unless otherwise specified in other management actions, motorized vehicle use on BLM-administered land is limited to 

existing roads and trails on an interim basis until completion of travel management planning. Designation changes from 

“limited to existing roads and trails” to “limited to designated roads and trails” upon the completion of a travel management 

plan. Terms “interim existing roads and trails”, or “existing roads and trails” are used throughout the document to identify 

areas of low travel management planning priority. Interim existing roads and trails may be maintained for continued access 

until completion of a travel management plan.

110 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

6033 LR:4 The following areas are closed to motorized vehicle use: Duck Swamp-Bridger Trail Environmental Education Area, the 

rifle range west of Worland, Salt Lick Trail, Gooseberry Badlands Interpretive Trail, Paint Rock Trail, Lone Tree Trail, 

and Canyon Creek Access Trail.

6034 LR:4 Route designation will be through site specific travel management planning, motorized vehicle use is limited to existing 

roads and trails unless and until route designations are implemented. Subsequent travel management plans will address 

maintenance of roads, ways, and trails on a site specific basis, in cooperation with stakeholders.

6035 LR:6 Motorized travel use is allowed throughout the planning area for emergency and administrative use, through other authorities, 

and maintenance and operations as authorized by permit on case-by-case basis.

6036 LR:4 Pedestrian and equestrian travel are not restricted, and use may occur on or off-roads or trails, except for very limited 

seasonal restrictions that are specifically defined elsewhere in this section, or specifically defined in subsequent travel 

management plans.

6037 LR:5 Implement the existing travel management plans within the following areas:

● Upper Nowood

● South Brokenback

● Renner (Upper and Lower) Wildlife Habitat Management Units

● Medicine Lodge Wildlife Habitat Management Units

● Paint Rock Area

● Cooperative Management Agreement between Bureau of Land Management, Worland District, LU Sheep Company, 

the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and the Wyoming State Board of Land Commissioners (LU Management 

Agreement)

6038 LR:4

LR:5

Motorized vehicle use (including snowmobile use) is limited to designated roads and trails with a seasonal closure in 

the following areas:

● Medicine Lodge Wildlife Habitat Management Area (1,791 acres), with a seasonal closure currently December 1 – 

June 30 in accordance with the travel management plan.

● Upper Renner Wildlife Habitat Management Area (9,184 acres), with a seasonal closure currently December 1 – May 31 

in accordance with the travel management plan.

Seasonal closure dates may be adjusted to correspond to with big game hunting seasons.

6039 LR:4 Over-snow vehicles are subject to the same requirements and limitations as all other motorized vehicles until activity 

planning specifically addresses their use or unless precluded by other resource needs.

Worland Approved RMP 111

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

6040 LR:6.3 Allow temporary closures to motorized vehicle use in areas that pose public health and safety risks, and/or where resource 

damage is imminent. In PHMAs and GHMAs, temporary closures will be considered in accordance with 43 CFR subpart 

8364 (Closures and Restrictions); 43 CFR subpart 8351 (Designated National Area); 43 CFR subpart 6302 (Use of 

Wilderness Areas, Prohibited Acts, and Penalties); 43 CFR subpart 8341 (Conditions of Use).

Temporary closure or restriction orders under these authorities are enacted at the discretion of the authorized officer to resolve 

management conflicts and protect persons, property, and public lands and resources. Where an authorized officer determines 

that off-highway vehicles are causing or will cause considerable adverse effects upon soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife 

habitat, cultural resources, historical resources, threatened or endangered species, wilderness suitability, other authorized

uses, or other resources, the affected areas shall be immediately closed to the type(s) of vehicle causing the adverse effect 

until the adverse effects are eliminated and measures implemented to prevent recurrence. (43 CFR 8341.2) A closure or 

restriction order should be considered only after other management strategies and alternatives have been explored. The 

duration of temporary closure or restriction orders should be limited to 24 months or less; however, certain situations may 

require longer closures and/or iterative temporary closures. This may include closure of routes or areas.

6041 LR:4.2

LR:4.3

Canada lynx analysis units are closed to motorized over-snow travel (Map 3-17).

6042 LR:4 Allow off‐road motorized (OHV) and mechanized travel up to 300 feet from established roads in areas with limited travel 

designations to allow direct access for big game retrieval and dispersed campsites, provided that: 1) no resource damage

occurs; 2) no new routes are created; and 3) such access is not otherwise prohibited by the BLM authorized officer.

Comprehensive Travel Management

6043 LR:4 To protect resource values, approximately 59,146 acres of BLM-administered land in the planning area are closed to 

motorized vehicle use (Map 3-26).

Areas closed to motorized vehicle use are defined in the corresponding special designation and resource alternatives, and 

also include:

● Owl Creek WSA, Sheep Mountain WSA, Red Butte WSA, and Bobcat Draw Badlands WSA

● Paint Rock

● Duck Swamp Environmental Education Area

● Spanish Point Karst ACEC

6044 LR:4 To protect resource values until each route is designated as open or closed in a corresponding travel management plan, 

motorized vehicle use is limited to existing roads and trails on approximately 1,301,277 acres of BLM-administered land 

in the planning area (Map 3-26).

112 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

6045 LR:4

LR:5

To protect resource values, travel management to designate roads and trails is prioritized on approximately 731,225 acres of 

BLM-administered land in the planning area (Map 3-26).

Areas where motorized vehicle use is limited to designated roads and trails are defined in the corresponding special 

designation and resource alternatives, and also include:

● Essential and recovery habitat for threatened and endangered species

● Areas over important caves or cave passages

● The West Slope of the Big Horn Mountains, Canyon Creek, Middle Fork of the Powder River, Absaroka Mountain 

Foothills, and Badlands SRMAs

● The Absaroka, Southern Bighorns, and Red Canyon Creek ERMAs

● The Cedar Mountain, Alkali Creek, Medicine Lodge, Trapper Creek, and Honeycombs WSAs

● Absaroka Front Management Area

● The Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite and Upper Owl Creek ACECs

6046 LR:4 Approximately 5,465 acres of BLM-administered land in the planning area are open to motorized vehicle use (after 

an activity plan is developed) (Map 3-26).

Areas open to motorized vehicle use are:

● Worland OHV area (1,044 acres)

● Basin Gardens Play Area SRMA (4,421 acres)

Additional Open OHV Areas may be pursued through R&PP leases or patent.

Over-Snow Travel

6047 LR:4 Areas open to over-snow vehicle use are considered on a case-by-case basis.

6048 LR:4 Areas are closed to over-snow vehicle use on a case-by-case-basis.

Worland Approved RMP 113

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.22. 6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Recreation

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Recreation

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL LR:7 Respond to distinct recreation customer demand by providing for customer realization of diverse activity, 

experience, and benefit opportunities.

Objectives:

LR:7.1 Manage SRMAs for specific: visitors, affected community residents, local governments and private sector businesses, 

or other constituents and the communities or other places where these customers originate (recreation-tourism market).

Manage ERMAs in order to address recreation use, demand or recreation and visitor services program investments. ERMAs 

are managed to support and sustain the principal recreation activities and the associated qualities and conditions of the ERMA.

LR:7.2 Manage for outcome focused objectives, recreation setting character conditions, and the administrative, marketing, 

and monitoring framework.

LR:7.3 Manage subunits, also known as RMZs, within SRMAs using planning tools to establish distinct recreation niches.

LR:7.4 Manage areas outside of RMAs (i.e., not within an SRMA or ERMA) in a custodial manner so as to maintain public 

health and safety, use and user conflicts, and resource protection.

LR:7.5 Increase awareness understanding and a sense of stewardship in recreational activity participants so their conduct 

safeguards cultural and natural resources as defined by Wyoming Standards for Public Land and Health or reach specific 

objectives.

LR:7.6 Ensure visitors are not exposed to unhealthy or unsafe human created conditions.

LR:7.7 Manage the direct indirect and cumulative impacts so as to maintain a minimal level of user conflict.

LR:7.8 Provide public education regarding appropriate use of BLM-administered land.

LR:7.9 Coordinate with other programs to provide opportunities for public visitation, interpretation, education, and 

appreciation of natural and cultural resources.

LR:7.10 Provide and manage events with special recreation permits that eliminate or minimize resource impacts and 

user conflicts.

GOAL LR:8 Develop and maintain appropriate recreational facilities, balancing public demand, protection of public land 

resources, and fiscal responsibility.

Objective:

LR:8.1 Manage and maintain recreation sites and facilities to acceptable operational standards.

6049 LR:7.1-7.3 Areas allocated as an SRMA or RMZ will continue to allow for all recreation activity types unless otherwise specified in this

RMP or subsequent activity level plan (see Appendix J, Recreation Management (p. 391)).

114 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Recreation

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

6050 LR:7.4-7.7 Utilize on the ground monitoring to ensure Bighorn Basin wide objectives 7.4-7.7 are achieved. Utilize the minimum 

necessary remedial actions to achieve the stated objective(s) in areas outside of RMAs.

6051 LR:7.4-7.7 

LR:7.10

Issue SRPs to authorize commercial, competitive, and organized recreational use. Evaluate existing BLM outfitter/guide 

activities for needs to establish future commercial use limitations and related policies (see Appendix J, Recreation

Management (p. 391)).

6052 LR:7.4-7.7 Manage recreational use to maintain or improve wetland habitat conditions along intensively used streams and reservoirs, 

consistent with the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands or other guidance (BLM 1997).

6053 LR:7.6

LR:7.7

LR:7.9

Continue a withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws in the Castle Gardens Recreation Site.

6054 LR:7.4-7.7 

LR:8

Design recreational sites, recreation facility development, and recreational access to avoid riparian habitat areas or develop 

and manage them in a manner that minimizes effects on riparian habitats. Construction of recreation facilities within 

PHMA must conform with the avoidance and minimization measures of this plan. If it is determined that these conservation 

measures are inadequate for the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse, the BLM will require and ensure compensatory 

mitigation that provides a net conservation gain to the species.

6055 LR:8 Establish new fee sites on a case-by-case basis consistent with the provisions of the Recreation Enhancement Act and as 

necessary to support management and maintenance of developed sites and related amenities.

6056 LR:7.4-7.7 

LR:8

Mitigate surface-disturbing and disruptive activities associated with the construction, maintenance, and use of roads, 

campgrounds, interpretive sites, and other recreational facilities, as described in Appendix F, Wyoming Bureau of Land

Management Mitigation Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities (p. 349).

6057 LR:7.4-7.7 Apply a 14-day campsite occupancy limit throughout the planning area unless modified by action through the authorized 

officer.

6058 LR:7.1-7.9 Retain recreational access in the Bighorn River HMP/RAMP area.

Developed Site Management

6059 LR:7.4-7.7 

LR:7.9

Apply an NSO restriction at the time of lease offering on the following:

● Areas within 1⁄4 mile of campgrounds, trailheads, day use areas, and similar recreational sites.

At the time of APD submittal, apply a CSU stipulation (site-specific relocation) if the lease does not contain an NSO 

restriction under other resource management on:

● Developed (and future) recreation sites,

● To mapped (and future) national/regional trails,

● Local system trails that connect communities.

6060 LR:7.3-7.7 

LR:7.9

Allow surface-disturbing activities such as geophysical exploration, salable minerals exploration and development, and 

construction activities in recreational sites and trails on a case-by-case basis if the effects can be avoided, minimized and/or 

compensated based on site-specific analysis (including those related to development of recreation facilities or wildlife 

habitat). Recreational sites and trails include areas such as campgrounds, trailheads, day use areas, and river access sites.

6061 LR:7.7 Minimize noise and light pollution in sensitive areas (e.g., developed campgrounds, and river corridors) on a case-by-case 

basis using best available technology.

Worland Approved RMP 115

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Recreation

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

6062 LR:7.4-7.7 

LR:7.9

Establish interpretive areas (e.g., geological, wildlife, wild horses, cultural interpretive sites, etc.) making use of scenic 

overlooks, signs, facilities and amenities, and walking trails on a case-by-case basis.

6063 LR:7.4-7.7 Manage portions of the town of Gebo and adjacent coal mining areas on BLM-administered land for preservation and 

interpretation of cultural and historic values. Include development of an interpretive road loop or roadside turnout.

6064 LR:7.4-7.7 

LR:8

Manage areas within 1⁄4 mile of campgrounds, trailheads, day use areas, and similar recreational sites as ROW avoidance 

areas, except those related to recreation facility development and maintenance.

Recreation and Visitor Services Overview (Additional management of SRMAs can be found in Appendix J, Recreation

Management (p. 391))

6065 LR:7.1-7.3 Administratively recognize the following areas to be managed as SRMAs (Map 3-27; Appendix J, Recreation

Management (p. 391)):

● Absaroka Mountain Foothills SRMA (42,615 acres) – Manage for an undeveloped recreation strategy for the protection 

of the recreation outcomes and setting prescriptions.

● Badlands SRMA (211,555 acres) – Manage for a community recreation strategy for the protection of the recreation 

outcomes and setting prescriptions. The Badlands SRMA will include the following RMZs:

○ Tour de Badlands (111,051 acres)

○ Wild Badlands (51,155 acres)

○ Tatman Mountain (49,348 acres)

● Basin Gardens Play Area SRMA (4,421 acres) – Manage for a community recreation strategy for the protection ofthe 

recreation outcomes and setting prescriptions.

● Canyon Creek SRMA (3,675 acres) – Manage for a community strategy for the protection of the recreation outcomes 

and setting prescriptions.

● Horse Pasture SRMA (144 acres) – Manage for a community recreation strategy for the protection of the recreation 

outcomes and setting prescriptions.

● Middle Fork of the Powder River SRMA (14,644 acres) – Manage for a destination recreation strategy for the protection 

of the recreation outcomes and setting prescriptions.

● West Slope of the Bighorns SRMA (190,943 acres ) – Manage for a destination recreation strategy for the protection of 

the recreation outcomes and setting prescriptions. The West Slope of the Bighorns SRMA will include the following 

RMZs:

○ Canyons RMZ (141,603 acres)

○ Brokenback/Logging Road RMZ (49,325 acres)

Additional Recreation Management prescriptions for each SRMA/RMZ appear in Appendix J, Recreation

Management (p. 391).

116 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Recreation

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

6066 LR:7.3-7.10 Identify the following areas as ERMAs:

● Absaroka ERMA (28,998 acres)

● Bighorn River ERMA (1,522 acres)

● Rattlesnake Ridge ERMA (7,982 acres)

● Red Canyon Creek ERMA (8,435 acres)

● Southern Bighorns ERMA (69,325 acres)

BLM lands not managed under ERMA or SRMA objectives are not designated as RMAs and are managed under other 

multiple-use objectives.

Absaroka Foothills Area

6067 LR:7.1-7.3 Manage 42,615 acres of the Absaroka foothills as the Absaroka Mountain Foothills SRMA with an undeveloped recreation 

strategy, and manage 28,998 acres as the Absaroka ERMA.

6068 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Absaroka Foothills SRMA for nonmotorized recreationists to engage in hiking, wildlife viewing, and nature 

viewing so that they realize a “moderate” level of the targeted experience and benefit outcomes listed in Appendix J,

Recreation Management (p. 391). 

Manage the Absaroka ERMA to address resource protection, use and user conflicts, and public health and safety. 

Manage for desired recreation setting character conditions, experiences, and benefits as listed in Appendix J, Recreation

Management (p. 391).

6069 LR:7.1-7.7 Apply a CSU stipulation on the Absaroka Mountain Foothills SRMA and Absaroka ERMA.

6070 LR:7.1‐7.7 Outside of the Absaroka Front Management Area, allow surface-disturbing activities in the Absaroka Mountain Foothills 

SRMA and Absaroka ERMA such as geophysical exploration, salable minerals exploration and development, and 

construction activities (including those related to development of recreation facilities or wildlife habitat) on a case-by-case 

basis.

6071 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Absaroka Mountain Foothills SRMA and the Absaroka ERMA as ROW avoidance areas, except to accommodate 

a demonstrated need if the effects can be adequately mitigated. Evaluate existing ROW on a case-by-case-basis atrenewal.

6072 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Absaroka Mountain Foothills SRMA and the Absaroka ERMA as renewable energy avoidance areas.

6073 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Absaroka Foothills SRMA as VRM Class II.

Manage VRM in the Absaroka ERMA consistent with other resource objectives.

6074 LR:7.1-7.7 Motorized vehicle use is limited to designated roads and trails in the Absaroka Mountain Foothills SRMA and the Absaroka 

ERMA.

Bighorn River Area

6075 LR:7.1-7.9 Manage the Bighorn River area as an ERMA to address use and user conflicts, public health and safety, resource protection, 

and to achieve the desired recreation setting character conditions as listed in Appendix J, Recreation Management (p. 391).

6076 LR:7.1-7.9 

LR:8.1

Manage lands along the Bighorn River for habitat, river heath, and wildlife resources under the Bighorn River HMP/RAMP, 

including coordination with other land uses and resources. Include the Eggert Tract and any additional river tracts acquired 

over the life of the plan.

6077 LR:7.1-7.9 Apply an NSO restriction on lands within the Bighorn River ERMA.

Worland Approved RMP 117

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Recreation

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

6078 LR:7.1-7.9 Manage the Bighorn River ERMA as ROW avoidance areas. Co-locate ROW whenever possible.

6079 LR:7.1-7.9 Allow surface-disturbing activities within the Bighorn River ERMA such as geophysical exploration, salable minerals 

exploration and development, and construction activities (including those related to development of recreation facilities or 

wildlife habitat) on a case-by-case basis if the effects can be avoided, minimized and/or compensated based on site-specific 

analysis.

6080 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Bighorn River ERMA as renewable energy avoidance areas.

6081 LR:7.1-7.9 Manage VRM in the Bighorn River ERMA consistent with other resource objectives.

6082 LR:7.1-7.9 Manage motorized vehicle use in the Bighorn River ERMA consistent with underlying resources.

Badlands – Tour de Badlands Area

6083 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Tour de Badlands area as an RMZ (111,051 acres) within the Badlands SRMA (211,555 acres).

6084 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Tour de Badlands RMZ for motorized recreationists to engage in motorized sightseeing, touring, wildlife 

viewing, and nature viewing so that affected community residents report realizing a “moderate” level of recreation experience 

and benefit from outcomes listed in Appendix J, Recreation Management (p. 391).

6085 LR:7.1-7.9 Develop one or more scenic interpretive sites and driving loops in the Tour de Badlands area within the Badlands SRMA 

to highlight the area's scenic values. These could involve the Fifteenmile Creek and Dorsey Creek roads and the Murphy

Draw Road with overlooks at the Painted Canyon of Elk Creek and at Bobcat Draw. Provide for additional interpretive areas 

in the Tour de Badlands RMZ on a case-by-case basis.

6086 LR:7.1-7.7 Review mineral leases on a case-by-case basis and apply mitigation through activity level planning.

6087 LR:7.1-7.7 Allow surface-disturbing activities in the Tour de Badlands RMZ such as geophysical exploration, salable minerals 

exploration and development, and construction activities (including those related to development of recreation facilities 

or wildlife habitat), on a case-by-case basis.

6088 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Tour de Badlands RMZ as a ROW avoidance area and co-locate ROWs whenever possible.

6089 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Tour de Badlands RMZ as a renewable energy avoidance area.

6090 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage VRM in the Tour de Badlands RMZ consistent with other resource objectives.

6091 LR:7.1-7.7 Motorized vehicle use is limited to designated roads and trails in the Tour de Badlands RMZ.

Badlands – Wild Badlands Area

6092 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Wild Badlands area as an RMZ (51,155 acres) within the Badlands SRMA.

6093 LR:7.1-7.4 Manage the Wild Badlands RMZ exclusively for nonmotorized recreation opportunities, such as hiking, wildlife viewing, 

and nature viewing so that affected community residents report realizing a “moderate” level of recreation experience and 

benefit outcomes listed in Appendix J, Recreation Management (p. 391). See WSA section for managementprescriptions.

Badlands – Tatman Mountain Area

6094 LR:7.1-7.9 Manage the Tatman Mountain area as an RMZ (49,348 acres) within the Badlands SRMA.

6095 LR:7.1-7.9 Manage the Tatman Mountain RMZ for nonmotorized recreation opportunities such as hiking, mountain biking, and nature 

viewing so that recreationists report realizing a “moderate” level of recreation experience and benefit outcomes listed in 

Appendix J, Recreation Management (p. 391).

6096 LR:7.1-7.9 Emphasize opportunities for recreational access to the Tatman Mountain RMZ.

6097 LR:7.1-7.9 Acquire legal and physical access to maximize recreational opportunities in the Tatman Mountain RMZ.

6098 LR:7.1-7.9 Apply a CSU stipulation on the Tatman Mountain RMZ.

118 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Recreation

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

6099 LR:7.1-7.9 Allow surface-disturbing activities in the Tatman Mountain RMZ, such as geophysical exploration, salable minerals 

exploration and development, and construction activities (including those related to development of recreation facilities

or wildlife habitat), on a case‐by‐case basis.

6100 LR:7.1-7.9 Manage the Tatman Mountain RMZ as a ROW avoidance area.

6101 LR:7.1-7.9 Manage the Tatman Mountain RMZ as a renewable energy avoidance area.

6102 LR:7.1-7.9 Manage VRM in the Tatman Mountain RMZ consistent with other resource objectives.

6103 LR:7.1-7.9 Motorized vehicle use is limited to designated roads and trails in the Tatman Mountain RMZ.

West Slope of the Bighorns – Trapper Creek Area

6104 LR:7.1-7.9 Manage the Trapper Creek area (3,324 acres) as part of the Canyons RMZ (141,603 acres) contained within the West 

Slope of the Bighorns SRMA (190,943 acres).

6105 LR:7.1-7.9 Manage the Trapper Creek area of the Canyons RMZ for motorized and non‐motorized recreation opportunities such as 

hiking, wildlife viewing, nature viewing, and driving for pleasure so that recreationists report realizing a “moderate” level of

recreation experience and benefit outcomes listed in Appendix J, Recreation Management (p. 391).

6106 LR:7.1-7.9 Consider the acquisition of legal and/or physical access for hunting, fishing, and camping. Consider acquiring areas such as 

Horse Mountain, Trapper Creek, and White Creek. Acquire legal public access for motorized and/or mechanized vehicle use 

in the Trapper Creek area of the Canyons RMZ.

6107 LR:7.1-7.9 

LR:8.1

Develop facilities necessary for site protection and visitor management at the trailhead in the Trapper Creek area. Facilities 

may include fire rings, comfort stations, fencing, parking areas, road improvements and vehicle barriers, and trail and 

bridge repair, depending on the needs of the specific site.

Develop the following facilities in the Trapper Creek area of the Canyons RMZ:

● Trailheads for White Creek, Black Mountain areas.

● Trailheads to accommodate mountain bike users.

● Pull-offs along the Red Gulch/Alkali Road National Back Country Byway.

● Designate motorized touring loops within the Trapper Creek area, as well as connecting with the Paint Rock area and the 

Bighorn National Forest, which may include new construction.

● Other sites will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

6108 LR:7.1-7.9 Apply a CSU stipulation on the Trapper Creek area of the Canyons RMZ.

6109 LR:7.1-7.9 Allow surface-disturbing activities in the Trapper Creek area of the Canyons RMZ such as geophysical exploration, salable 

minerals exploration and development, and construction activities (including those related to development of recreation 

facilities or wildlife habitat) if the effects can be avoided, minimized and/or compensated based on site-specific analysis.

6110 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Trapper Creek area of the Canyons RMZ as a ROW avoidance area.

6111 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Trapper Creek area of the Canyons RMZ as a renewable energy avoidance area.

6112 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Trapper Creek area of the Canyons RMZ area as VRM Classes I, II, and III.

6113 LR:7.1-7.7 Motorized vehicle use is limited to designated roads and trails in the Trapper Creek area of the Canyons RMZ.

West Slope of the Bighorns – Paint Rock Area

6114 LR:7.1-7.9 Manage the Paint Rock area as part of the Canyons RMZ (141,603 acres) contained within the West Slope of the Bighorns 

SRMA.

Worland Approved RMP 119

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Recreation

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

6115 LR:7.1-7.9 Manage the Paint Rock area of the Canyons RMZ for motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities to engage in 

hiking, wildlife viewing, nature viewing, and driving for pleasure so that recreationists report realizing a “moderate” level of 

recreation experience and benefit outcomes listed in Appendix J, Recreation Management (p. 391).

6116 LR:7.1-7.9 Emphasize opportunities for recreational access, especially in the Laddie Creek and Paint Rock Creek areas and pursue 

yearlong access to the Paint Rock canyon via the Paint Rock Trail in the Paint Rock area of the Canyons RMZ.

6117 LR:7.1-7.9 

LR:8.1

Develop facilities to enhance recreation and visitor services for the following areas in the Paint Rock area of the Canyons 

RMZ:

● Trailheads/pull-offs along the Red Gulch/Alkali Road National Back Country Byway.

● Upgrade Access route and Trailhead at the Lone Tree Trail.

● Designate motorized touring loops connecting with the Bighorn National Forest, the Trapper Creek area, and the 

Brokenback/Logging Road RMZ, which may include new construction.

● Other sites, trailheads, and trails will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

6118 LR:7.1-7.9 Apply a CSU stipulation on the Paint Rock area of the Canyons RMZ.

6119 LR:7.1-7.9 Allow surface-disturbing activities in the Paint Rock area of the Canyons RMZ such as geophysical exploration, salable 

minerals exploration and development, and construction activities (including those related to development of recreation 

facilities or wildlife habitat) if the effects can be avoided, minimized and/or compensated based on site-specific analysis.

6120 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Paint Rock area of the Canyons RMZ as a ROW avoidance area.

6121 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Paint Rock area of the Canyons RMZ as a renewable energy avoidance area.

6122 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Paint Rock area of the Canyons RMZ as VRM Class I and II.

6123 LR:7.1-7.7 Motorized vehicle use is limited to designated roads and trails in the Paint Rock area of the Canyons RMZ.

West Slope of the Bighorns – Brokenback/Logging Road Area

6124 LR:7.1-7.9 Manage Brokenback/Logging Road as an RMZ (49,325 acres) contained within the West Slope of the Bighorns SRMA.

6125 LR:7.1-7.9 Manage the Brokenback/Logging Road RMZ for motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities such as hiking, 

wildlife viewing, nature viewing, and driving for pleasure so that recreationists report realizing a “moderate” level of 

recreation experience and benefit outcomes listed in Appendix J, Recreation Management (p. 391).

6126 LR:7.1-7.9 Emphasize opportunities for recreational access, especially in the Laddie Creek areas of the Brokenback/Logging Road area. 

Include additional areas within the Brokenback/Logging Road RMZ to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

6127 LR:7.1-7.9 Consider the acquisition of legal and/or physical access for hunting, fishing, boating, and camping in the Brokenback/Logging 

Road area. Consider areas for acquisition including North and South Brokenback Creek.

Consider the acquisition of the following areas in the Brokenback/Logging Road RMZ:

● Luman Creek Road.

● Military Creek Road.

● Dorn Draw Road.

● Other sites will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

120 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Recreation

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

6128 LR:7.1-7.9 

LR:8.1

Develop facilities to enhance recreation and visitor services for the following areas in the Brokenback/Logging Road RMZ:

● Trailheads for North and South Brokenback areas, Laddie Creek, and the Hyattville Logging Road.

● Pull-outs along the Hyattville Logging Road.

● Improve Salt Lick Trail and trailhead.

● Designate motorized touring loops within the Brokenback/Logging road RMZ as well as connecting with the Paint Rock 

area and the Bighorn National Forest, which may include new construction.

● Other sites, trailheads and trails will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

6129 LR:7.1-7.9 Apply a CSU stipulation on the Brokenback/Logging Road RMZ.

6130 LR:7.1-7.7 Allow surface-disturbing activities in the Brokenback/Logging Road RMZ such as geophysical exploration, salable minerals 

exploration and development, and construction activities (including those related to development of recreation facilities or 

wildlife habitat) if the effects can be avoided, minimized and/or compensated based on site-specific analysis.

6131 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Brokenback/Logging Road RMZ as a ROW avoidance area.

6132 LR:7.1-7.7 The Brokenback/Logging Road RMZ is closed to renewable energy development.

6133 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Brokenback/Logging Road RMZ as VRM Class II.

6134 LR:7.1-7.7 Motorized vehicle use is limited to designated roads and trails in the Brokenback/Logging Road RMZ.

West Slope of the Bighorns – South Bighorns Area

6135 LR:7.1-7.9 Manage a portion of the South Bighorns area as the Middle Fork of the Powder River SRMA (14,644 acres) and a portion as 

the Southern Bighorns ERMA (69,325 acres).

6136 LR:7.1-7.9 Manage the Middle Fork of the Powder River SRMA for motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities such as 

hiking, wildlife viewing, nature viewing, hunting, fishing and driving for pleasure so that recreationists report realizing a

“moderate” level of recreation experience and benefit outcomes listed in Appendix J, Recreation Management (p. 391). 

Manage the Southern Bighorns ERMA to address use and user conflicts, public health and safety, resource protection, and for 

desired recreation setting character conditions as listed in Appendix J, Recreation Management (p. 391).

6137 LR:7.1-7.9 Emphasize recreational access to maximize recreational opportunities in the Middle Fork of the Powder River SRMA 

and the Southern Bighorns ERMA.

6138 LR:7.1-7.9 Consider the acquisition of legal and/or physical access for hunting, fishing, boating, and camping in the South Bighorns 

area. Areas considered for acquisition include Otter Creek, Deep Creek, Little Canyon Creek, and public land tracts along 

the Nowood River area. Other sites will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

6139 LR:7.1-7.9 

LR:8.1

In the Middle Fork of the Powder River SRMA and the Southern Bighorns ERMA, develop facilities necessary to maximize 

recreational opportunities in the following areas:

● Middle Fork camping area and the Cherry Creek stock driveway crossing of Deep Creek, and in Otter Creek.

● Trailheads for Middle Fork Campground, Mahogany Butte, Deep Creek, and Upper Nowood areas.

● Other areas determined on a case-by-case basis.

Facilities may include fire rings, comfort stations, fencing, parking areas, road improvements and vehicle barriers, and trail 

and bridge repair, depending on the needs of the specific site.

Worland Approved RMP 121

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Recreation

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

6140 LR:7.1-7.9 Apply a CSU stipulation on the Middle Fork of the Powder River SRMA.

Review mineral leases on a case-by-case basis and apply mitigation through activity level planning in the Southern Bighorns 

ERMA.

6141 LR:7.1-7.7 Allow surface-disturbing activities in the Middle Fork of the Powder River SRMA such as geophysical exploration, salable 

minerals exploration and development, and construction activities (including those related to development of recreation 

facilities or wildlife habitat) if the effects can be avoided, minimized and/or compensated based on site-specific analysis.

Allow surface-disturbing activities in the Southern Bighorns ERMA.

6142 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Middle Fork of the Powder River SRMA and the Southern Bighorns ERMA as ROW avoidance areas.

6143 LR:7.1-7.7 The South Bighorns ERMA is open to renewable energy development.

6144 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage VRM in the Southern Bighorns ERMA consistent with other resource objectives. Manage the Middle Fork of 

the Powder River SRMA as VRM Class II.

6145 LR:7.1-7.7 Motorized vehicle use is limited to designated roads and trails in the Middle Fork of the Powder River SRMA and the 

Southern Bighorns ERMA.

Canyon Creek Area

6146 LR:7.1-7.9 Manage Canyon Creek area as an SRMA (3,675 acres) with a community recreation strategy for the protection of the 

recreation outcomes and setting prescriptions (Map 3-27) (Appendix J, Recreation Management (p. 391)).

6147 LR:7.1-7.9 Manage the Canyon Creek SRMA for nonmotorized recreation opportunities such as hiking, fishing, nature viewing, and 

wildlife viewing so that recreationists report realizing a “moderate” level of recreation experience and benefit outcomes 

listed in Appendix J, Recreation Management (p. 391).

6148 LR:7.1-7.9 Emphasize opportunities for recreational access to the Canyon Creek SRMA.

6149 LR:7.1-7.9 Acquire legal and physical access to maximize recreational opportunities in the Canyon Creek SRMA.

6150 LR:7.1-7.9 

LR:8.1

Develop facilities to enhance recreation and visitor services for the following areas in the Canyon Creek SRMA:

● Looping hiking trails in Canyon Creek and off of Smilo Road.

● Trailhead at Canyon Creek and Smilo Road.

● Other sites will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

6151 LR:7.1-7.9 Apply a CSU stipulation on the Canyon Creek SRMA.

6152 LR:7.1-7.7 Allow surface-disturbing activities in the Canyon Creek SRMA such as geophysical exploration, salable minerals exploration 

and development, and construction activities (including those related to development of recreation facilities or wildlife 

habitat) if the effects can be avoided, minimized and/or compensated based on site-specific analysis.

6153 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Canyon Creek SRMA as a ROW avoidance area.

6154 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Canyon Creek SRMA as a renewable energy avoidance area.

6155 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Canyon Creek SRMA as VRM Class II.

6156 LR:7.1-7.7 Motorized vehicle use is limited to designated roads and trails in the Canyon Creek SRMA.

Red Canyon Creek Area

6157 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Red Canyon Creek as an ERMA (8,435 acres).

122 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Recreation

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

6158 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Red Canyon Creek ERMA to maximize back country recreational opportunities and to address use and user 

conflicts, public health and safety, resource protection, and for desired recreation setting character conditions as listed in 

Appendix J, Recreation Management (p. 391).

6159 LR:7.1-7.7 

LR:8.1

Consider establishing trailheads in the Red Canyon Creek ERMA consistent with an overall objective to emphasize 

primitive recreation.

6160 LR:7.4-7.7 Review mineral leases on a case-by-case basis. The Red Canyon Creek ERMA is available for locatable mineral entry. 

Authorize mineral materials disposal and/or free use permits. Apply mitigation through activity level planning.

6161 LR:7.4-7.7 Allow surface-disturbing activities in the Red Canyon Creek ERMA.

6162 LR:7.4-7.7 Manage the Red Canyon Creek ERMA as a ROW avoidance area.

6163 LR:7.4-7.7 Manage the Red Canyon Creek ERMA as a renewable energy avoidance area.

6164 LR:7.4-7.7 Manage the Red Canyon Creek ERMA as VRM Classes II and III.

6165 LR:7.4-7.7 Motorized vehicle use is limited to designated roads and trails in the Red Canyon Creek ERMA.

Basin Gardens – Basin Gardens Play Area

6166 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Basin Gardens Play Area as a SRMA (4,421 acres) with a community recreation strategy for the protection of the 

recreation outcomes and setting prescriptions (Map 3-27) (Appendix J, Recreation Management (p. 391)).

6167 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Basin Gardens Play Area SRMA for motorized recreation opportunities such as all-terrain vehicle, motorbike, 

mountain bike, and other motorized and mechanized hill climbing activities so that recreationists report realizing a 

“moderate” level of recreation experience and benefit outcomes listed in Appendix J, Recreation Management (p. 391).

6168 LR:7.1-7.7 Apply a CSU stipulation on the Basin Gardens Play Area SRMA.

6169 LR:7.1-7.7 Authorize mineral materials disposal in the Basin Gardens Play Area SRMA if the effects can be avoided, minimized and/or 

compensated based on site-specific analysis.

6170 LR:7.1-7.7 Allow surface-disturbing activities in the Basin Gardens Play Area SRMA such as geophysical exploration, and construction 

activities (including those related to development of recreation facilities or wildlife habitat) if the effects can be avoided, 

minimized and/or compensated based on site-specific analysis.

6171 LR:7.4-7.7 Manage the Basin Gardens Play Area SRMA as a ROW avoidance area.

6172 LR:7.4-7.7 Manage the Basin Gardens Play Area SRMA as a renewable energy avoidance area.

6173 LR:7.4-7.7 Manage VRM in the Basin Gardens Play Area SRMA consistent with other resource objectives.

6174 LR:7.4-7.7 4,421 acres within the Basin Gardens Play Area SRMA are open to motorized vehicle use.

Basin Gardens – Basin Gardens Area

6175 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Basin Gardens area to address use and user conflicts, public health and safety, and resource protection.

6176 LR:7.1-7.7 Review mineral leases on a case-by-case basis and apply mitigation through activity level planning in the Basin Gardens area.

6177 LR:7.1-7.7 Authorize mineral materials disposal in the Basin Gardens area.

6178 LR:7.1-7.7 Allow surface-disturbing activities in the Basin Gardens area such as geophysical exploration and construction activities 

(including those related to development of recreation facilities or wildlife habitat) on a case-by-case basis.

6179 LR:7.4-7.7 Manage the Basin Gardens area as a ROW avoidance area. Co-locate ROW authorizations whenever possible.

6180 LR:7.4-7.7 The Basin Gardens area is open to renewable energy development.

6181 LR:7.4-7.7 Manage VRM in the Basin Gardens area consistent with other resource objectives.

6182 LR:7.4-7.7 Motorized vehicle use is limited to existing roads and trails in the Basin Gardens area.

Worland Approved RMP 123

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Recreation

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

Horse Pasture Area

6183 LR:7.1-7.9 Manage the Horse Pasture area as an SRMA (144 acres) with a community recreation strategy for the protection of the 

recreation outcomes and setting prescriptions (Map 3-27) (Appendix J, Recreation Management (p. 391)).

6184 LR:7.1-7.9 Manage the Horse Pasture SRMA for nonmotorized recreation opportunities such as hiking, photography, hunting, and 

sightseeing so that recreationists report realizing a “moderate” level of recreation experience and benefit outcomes listed in 

Appendix J, Recreation Management (p. 391). 

Also manage for habitat and wildlife resources under the Bighorn River HMP/RAMP.

6185 LR:7.1-7.9 

LR:8.1

Develop facilities to enhance recreation and visitor services in the Horse Pasture SRMA. Such facilities could include hiking

trails, comfort stations, fencing, parking areas, road improvements and vehicle barriers, and trail and bridge repair.

6186 LR:7.1-7.9 Apply a CSU stipulation on the Horse Pasture SRMA.

6187 LR:7.1-7.7 Allow surface-disturbing activities in the Horse Pasture SRMA such as geophysical exploration, salable minerals exploration 

and development, and construction activities (including those related to development of recreation facilities or wildlife 

habitat) if the effects can be avoided, minimized and/or compensated based on site-specific analysis.

6188 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Horse Pasture SRMA as a ROW avoidance area.

6189 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Horse Pasture SRMA as a renewable energy avoidance area.

6190 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage VRM in the Horse Pasture SRMA consistent with other resource objectives.

6191 LR:7.1-7.7 Motorized vehicle use in the Horse Pasture SRMA is limited to designated roads and trails.

Rattlesnake Ridge Area

6192 LR:7.1-7.7 Manage the Rattlesnake Ridge area as an ERMA (7,982 acres) to maximize recreational opportunities, and to address use and 

user conflicts, public health and safety, and resource protection.

6193 LR:7.1-7.7 Motorized vehicle use is limited to existing roads and trails in the Rattlesnake Ridge ERMA.

124 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.23. 6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL LR:9 Manage lands with wilderness characteristics as appropriate, considering manageability and the context 

of competing resource demands.

6194 LR:9.1 Response to wildland fires may vary from full suppression in areas where fire is undesirable, to monitoring fire behavior in 

areas where fire can be used as a management tool.

6195 LR:9.1 Allow permitted livestock grazing use consistent with other resource objectives and in agreement with the Wyoming 

Standards for Healthy Rangelands (BLM 1997).

6196 LR:9.1 Manage invasive species using Invasive Pest Management strategy.

6197 LR:9.1 No lands with wilderness characteristics are managed to maintain their wilderness characteristics, including naturalness, 

outstanding opportunities for solitude, and primitive and unconfined recreation. Manage lands with wilderness characteristics 

consistent with other resource objectives.

Worland Approved RMP 125

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.24. 6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Livestock Grazing Management

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Livestock Grazing Management

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL LR:10 Continue ecosystem benefits of herbivory by providing opportunities for livestock grazing to support and 

sustain local communities consistent with goals and objectives of other resources and overall land health.

Objectives:

LR:10.1 Manage livestock grazing consistent with multiple-use needs, sustained yield, and the Wyoming Standards for 

Healthy Rangelands (BLM 1997). Adjust management based on assessments and evaluations.

LR:10.2 Provide for the establishment of voluntary reserve common allotments as opportunities arise within the planning 

area to facilitate rangeland restoration, recovery, and management objectives (in accordance with existing policy, WO 

IM 2013-184).

LR:10.3 Manage levels of livestock use in a manner that strives to maintain or restore permitted use based on forage 

availability consistent with multiple use.

6198 LR:10.1 

LR:10.3

In cooperation, consultation, and coordination with permittees/lessees, cooperators, and interested public, develop and 

implement appropriate livestock grazing management actions to enhance land health, improve forage for livestock, and meet 

other multiple use objectives by using the Wyoming Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management, other appropriate BMPs 

(see Appendix C, Required Design Features and Best Management Practices (p. 249)), and development of appropriate 

range improvements. The BLM will prioritize (1) the review of grazing permits/leases, in particular to determine if 

modification is necessary prior to renewal, and (2) the processing of grazing permits/leases in PHMAs. In setting workload 

priorities, precedence will be given to existing permits/leases in areas not meeting Land Health Standards, with focus on 

allotments containing riparian areas or wet meadows. The BLM may use other criteria for prioritization to respond to urgent 

natural resource concerns (e.g., wildfire) and legal obligations.

The BLM will collaborate with appropriate federal agencies, and the State of Wyoming as contemplated under Governor EO 

2013–3 (Wyoming Office of the Governor 2013), to 1) develop appropriate conservation objectives; 2) define a framework 

for evaluating situations where Greater Sage-Grouse conservation objectives are not being achieved on federal land, to 

determine if a causal relationship exists between improper grazing (by wildlife or wild horses or livestock) and Greater 

Sage-Grouse conservation objectives; and 3) identify appropriate site-specific actions to achieve Greater Sage-Grouse 

conservation objectives within the framework.

6199 LR:10.1 

LR:10.3

AMPs remain in effect or are revised as necessary.

6200 LR:10.1 Retain designated stock driveway withdrawals (59,155 acres) and easements, except where no longer needed or provide 

comparable alternate access and routes. Other land uses within stock driveways will be considered on a case-by-case basis, 

so long as the proposed use will not interfere with the purpose for the withdrawal. Permit other livestock trailing on a caseby-case basis.

6201 LR:10.1 Maintain current allotment categories shown on Map 3-28 (M, I, and C; see Glossary). Throughout the life of the plan, 

re-categorize allotments based on assessments and evaluations.

126 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Livestock Grazing Management

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

6202 LR:10.1 Utilize a rangeland health assessment, resource monitoring, or analysis to determine if livestock grazing adjustments 

in amounts, kinds, or season are necessary. The NEPA analysis for renewals and modifications of livestock grazing

permits/leases that include lands within PHMAs will include specific management thresholds based on Greater Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Objectives Table (Table 2.7, “Greater Sage-Grouse Seasonal Habitat Objectives” (p. 22)) and Land Health Standards 

(43 CFR 4180.2) and one or more defined responses that will allow the authorizing officer to make adjustments to livestock 

grazing that have already been subjected to NEPA analysis. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Objectives Table (Table 2.7,

“Greater Sage-Grouse Seasonal Habitat Objectives” (p. 22)), Land Health Standards (43 CFR 4180.2) and ecological

site potential, and one or more defined responses that will allow the authorizing officer to make adjustments to livestock 

grazing that have already been subjected to NEPA analysis.

6203 LR:10.1 

LR:10.3

Forage supplements will be certified weed free and safe/compatible for domestic sheep, wildlife and wild horses based on 

allotment specific situations.

6204 LR:10.1 Approximately 1,444 acres along the Bighorn River remain closed to livestock grazing, unless grazing is used for specific 

vegetation management objectives such as habitat improvement or the eradication of invasive weeds (tracts listed in Big 

Horn River HMP/RAMP and the Eggert Tract).

6205 LR:10.1 Vary the intensity of livestock grazing monitoring, with higher priority given to "I" category allotments and those allotments 

not meeting land health standards due to livestock grazing.

6206 LR:10.1-10.3 The planning area is open to livestock grazing except in areas specifically closed to grazing, such as:

● Bighorn River tracts (1,444 acres)

● Campgrounds (273 acres)

● Exclosures (113 acres)

Manage livestock grazing to support other resource objectives and allow livestock grazing in areas closed to grazing as a tool 

to maintain or improve resource conditions.

Mitigate new resource uses to minimize or avoid conflicts with livestock grazing where appropriate.

6207 LR:10.1 

LR:10.3

Apportion additional sustained yield forage, based on monitoring, to satisfy suspended permitted use of permittees/lessees in

the allotment and to meet multiple‐use objectives where the forage is available.

6208 LR:10.1-10.3 On a case-by-case basis, allow issuance of permits/leases for livestock grazing for parcels that are not included in a grazing 

allotment. Where such permits/leases are not issued, allocate forage on such parcels to meet other multiple-use objectives.

6209 LR:10.5 Establish and manage future reserve common allotments on abandoned allotments on a case-by-case basis and attempt to 

utilize each allotment at least every five years.

At the time a permittee or lessee voluntarily relinquishes or abandons a permit or lease, the BLM will consider whether the 

public lands where that permitted use was authorized should remain available for livestock grazing or be used for other 

resource management objectives, such as reserve common allotments or fire breaks. This does not apply to or impact grazing 

preference transfers, which are addressed in 43 CFR 4110.2–3.

6210 LR:10.1 

LR:10.3

Prohibit the placement of salt, mineral, or forage supplements within 1⁄4 mile of water, wetlands, riparian areas, reclaimed or 

reforested areas, or as determined by the authorized officer.

Worland Approved RMP 127

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – Livestock Grazing Management

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

6211 LR:10.1-10.3 In cooperation with permittees and the interested public, develop and implement AMPs or grazing management agreements

as necessary to meet multiple use objectives.

6212 LR:10.1-10.3 Design range improvement projects, including vegetation treatments, to meet multiple-use objectives, mitigate impacts to 

other resource values, and meet allotment management objectives.

6213 LR:10.1 

LR:10.3

Allow livestock use of produced water, meeting applicable standards on a case-by-case basis.

6214 LR:10.1 Allotments within PHMAs, focusing on those containing riparian areas, including wet meadows, will be prioritized

for field checks to help ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the grazing permits (Appendix O, Livestock

Grazing (p. 563)). Field checks could include monitoring for actual use, utilization, and use supervision.

128 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.25. 7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL SD:1 Protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife 

resources or other natural systems or process, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards.

Objectives:

SD:1.1 Utilize special designations to meet resource protection needs within appropriate geographical areas.

SD:1.2 Provide for appropriate interpretation of sites of high public interest.

7001 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

A plan of operations for all locatable mineral exploration (except casual use) and development on mining claims is 

required in ACECs.

7002 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Allow permitted livestock grazing use, unless otherwise prohibited, in agreement with the Wyoming Standards for Healthy 

Rangelands (BLM 1997).

Big Cedar Ridge ACEC

7003 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Manage the Big Cedar Ridge ACEC (Map 3-30; 264 acres).

7004 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Allow the use of hand tools in the Big Cedar Ridge ACEC to collect plant fossils for research and casual use in the fossil 

concentration areas. Mechanized collection may be approved on a case-by-case basis.

7005 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Do not require site-specific surveys for cultural and historic resources for casual use collection of plant fossils in the 

Big Cedar Ridge ACEC.

7006 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

The Big Cedar Ridge ACEC is open to mineral leasing.

7007 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Apply an NSO in the Big Cedar Ridge ACEC.

7008 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

The Big Cedar Ridge ACEC is closed to geophysical exploration.

7009 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Manage the Big Cedar Ridge ACEC as a ROW exclusion area..

7010 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Motorized vehicle use is limited to existing roads and trails in the Big Cedar Ridge ACEC.

7011 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

The Big Cedar Ridge ACEC is open to consideration for leasing of geothermal resources; prohibit surface-disturbing 

activities associated with geothermal exploration and development.

7012 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Pursue a withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws for the Big Cedar Ridge ACEC.

7013 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

The ACEC is closed to mineral materials disposal and related exploration and development activities.

7014 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Encourage and expand public education opportunities in the Big Cedar Ridge area. Work with museums in highlighting 

paleontological resources from the area.

Worland Approved RMP 129

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite ACEC

7015 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Manage the Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite ACEC (Map 3-30; 1,798 acres).

7016 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Motorized vehicle use is limited to designated roads and trails in the Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite ACEC.

7017 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Prohibit surface-disturbing activities within the Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite ACEC, except the construction of roads, 

trails, interpretive signs, and other facilities to enhance public education and recreation, and activities allowed under a 

paleontological resources use permit.

7018 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Require all scientific and educational researchers studying the dinosaur tracks or working in that geologic horizon in the Red 

Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite ACEC to obtain a paleontological resources use permit.

7019 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Prohibit the use of heavy equipment to construct fire lines and the use of chemical and dye retardants in the Red Gulch 

Dinosaur Tracksite ACEC.

7020 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Close the interpretive area of the Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite ACEC to livestock grazing.

7021 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Apply an NSO restriction for mineral leasing, exploration, and development on BLM-administered lands in the Sundance 

Formation of the Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite ACEC.

7022 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Pursue a withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws for the Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite ACEC.

Spanish Point Karst ACEC

7023 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Manage the Spanish Point Karst ACEC (Map 3-30; 6,298 acres).

7024 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Manage basal vegetative cover in the Spanish Point Karst ACEC to maximize (or maintain) ground cover in good or better 

ecological condition, commensurate with the potential of the ecological site.

7025 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Pursue a withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws for the Spanish Point Karst ACEC. The withdrawal will 

involve the federal mineral estate under private surface and under federal surface administered by the USFS and the BLM.

7026 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Pursue ACEC Agreements for the cooperative management of surface activities in watersheds on USFS-administered and 

private lands within and adjacent to the Spanish Point Karst ACEC. To the extent possible, maintain compatible management 

prescriptions for these lands and those administered by the BLM.

7027 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

The Spanish Point Karst ACEC is closed to oil and gas leasing.

7028 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

The Spanish Point Karst ACEC is closed to geophysical exploration.

7029 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Manage the Spanish Point Karst ACEC as a ROW avoidance area.

Upper Owl Creek ACEC

7030 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Manage the Upper Owl Creek ACEC (Map 3-30; 13,758 acres).

7031 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Motorized vehicle use is limited to designated roads and trails in the Upper Owl Creek ACEC.

130 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

7032 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Limit or prohibit surface-disturbing activities in the Upper Owl Creek ACEC to protect fragile soils, alpine tundra, important 

wildlife habitat, and scenic values.

7033 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Pursue withdrawals from appropriation under the mining laws for portions of the ACEC on a case-by-case basis.

7034 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Require a detailed activity plan before approval of any proposal for major surface-disturbing activity in the Upper Owl 

Creek ACEC.

7035 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Manage the Upper Owl Creek ACEC as a ROW avoidance area.

7036 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Coordinate with local stakeholders in landscape management.

7037 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

The Upper Owl Creek ACEC is closed to oil and gas leasing.

Worland Approved RMP 131

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.26. 7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – National Back Country Byways 

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – National Back Country Byways

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL SD:2 Manage National Back Country Byways to enhance opportunities for the public to see and enjoy public lands.

Objectives:

SD:2.1 Promote the increased awareness of the historical and cultural values and facilitate a sense of stewardship within the 

Red Gulch/Alkali Road National Back Country Byway.

SD:2.2 Where appropriate, identify scenic or back country byways and where necessary develop management prescriptions 

to maintain resource values.

SD:2.3 Through cooperative relationships with volunteer groups, landowners, other agencies, and other interested 

stakeholders, showcase landscapes, their scenic qualities, multiple uses, and unique character through interpretation.

7038 SD:2 Continue the existing Red Gulch/Alkali Road National Back Country Byway designation. Manage cultural and 

environmental interpretation and education along the byway under the Red Gulch/Alkali National Back Country Byway 

Interpretive Master Plan (BLM 1994).

7039 SD:2.1

SD:2.3

Develop educational materials and facilities to enhance the knowledge of resources and the unique character of the Red 

Gulch/Alkali Road National Back Country Byway.

7040 SD:2.2 Consider the designation of new Back Country Byways on a case-by-case basis in cooperation with stakeholders.

7041 SD:2.2

SD:2.3

Consider the development of interpretive facilities (including interpretive pull-outs, parking areas, trailheads, etc.) and public 

interpretive and educational brochures displaying the multiple users on BLM-administered public lands; the geologic, scenic, 

and cultural values, and the unique character of newly designated Back Country Byways.

132 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.27. 7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – Historic Trails

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – Regionally Important Prehistoric and Historic Trails

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL SD:3 Manage Historic Trails for long-term heritage and educational values and to enhance the public experience.

Objectives:

SD:3.1 Maintain compatible recreational use with historic trail values.

SD:3.2 Maintain setting for those contributing trail segments where setting is an aspect of integrity by utilizing viewshed 

management tools.

GOAL SD:4 Enhance public experience through interpretive facilities and support of heritage tourism.

Objectives:

SD:4.1 Sites associated with historic trails will be interpreted and developed as needed.

SD:4.2 Maximize partnership and cooperative management opportunities (e.g., cooperate with private landowners to 

install trail markers, provide public access, etc.).

7042 SD:3.1

SD:3.2

SD:4.1

SD:4.2

Avoid surface-disturbing activities and protect the foreground of Historic Trails (defined in Glossary) up to 2 miles or the 

visual horizon within contributing portions of the trail whichever is closer (the SCZ) where setting is an important aspect of 

the integrity for the trail. The 2-mile buffer would also apply to areas unevaluated until it is determined that setting is not an 

important aspect of the integrity of the trail. Use BMPs (Appendix C, Required Design Features and Best Management

Practices (p. 249)) to avoid, minimize and/or compensate adverse effects, except within designated utility corridors.

7043 SD:3.1

SD:3.2

SD:4.1

SD:4.2

Protect the foreground of Historic Trails (defined in Glossary) up to 2 miles or the visual horizon within contributing portions 

of the trail whichever is closer (the SCZ) where setting is an important aspect of the integrity for the trail. The 2-mile buffer 

would also apply to areas unevaluated until it is determined that setting is not an important aspect of the integrity of the 

trail. Use BMPs (Appendix C, Required Design Features and Best Management Practices (p. 249)) to avoid, minimize 

and/or compensate adverse effects.

7044 SD:3.1

SD:3.2

SD:4.1

SD:4.2

Avoid surface-disturbing activities and protect the foreground of Historic Trails (defined in Glossary) up to 2 miles or the 

visual horizon within contributing portions of the trail whichever is closer (the SCZ) where setting is an important aspect of 

the integrity for the trail. The 2-mile buffer would also apply to areas unevaluated until it is determined that setting is not an 

important aspect of the integrity of the trail. Use BMPs (Appendix C, Required Design Features and Best Management

Practices (p. 249)) to avoid, minimize and/or compensate adverse effects.

7045 SD:3.1

SD:3.2

SD:4.1

SD:4.2

Motorized vehicle use is managed consistent with other resource objectives (Map 3-26).

Worland Approved RMP 133

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.28. 7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – Wild and Scenic Rivers

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – Wild and Scenic Rivers

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL SD:5 Protect the free-flowing condition, water quality, tentative classification, and any outstanding remarkable values 

of suitable river segments until Congress designates the river or releases it for other uses.

Objective:

SD:5.1 Protect outstanding remarkable values of eligible and suitable WSR segments.

7046 SD:5.1 Manage all WSR-eligible waterways as unsuitable for inclusion in the NWSRS, and release these areas to other uses. Manage 

BLM-administered lands within these areas consistent with other resource objectives.

134 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.29. 7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – Wilderness Study Areas

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – Wilderness Study Areas

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL SD:6 Manage WSAs to maintain their suitability as wilderness.

Objective:

SD:6.1 Areas managed as WSAs will maintain a high degree of naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, 

outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation.

7047 SD:6 Manage all WSAs under the guidance of BLM Manual 6330, Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas (BLM 2012a), to 

maintain the non-impairment standard.

7048 SD:6 The following WSAs (Map 3-31) are managed under BLM Manual 6330:

● Alkali Creek (9,475 acres)

● Cedar Mountain (20,425 acres)

● Honeycombs (20,156 acres)

● Medicine Lodge (7,181 acres)

● Trapper Creek (7,475 acres)

● Owl Creek (668 acres)

● Sheep Mountain (23,256 acres)

● Red Butte (10,805 acres)

● Bobcat Draw Badlands (16,969 acres)

7049 SD:6 Manage all WSAs as VRM Class I.

7050 SD:6 Manage WSAs as ROW avoidance areas, as detailed in BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Area.

7051 SD:6 WSAs are closed to renewable energy development.

7052 SD:6 Manage all mineral activities in WSAs in accordance with BLM Manual 6330.

7053 SD:6 WSAs are closed to mineral and geothermal leasing.

7054 SD:6 WSAs are closed to mineral materials disposal.

7055 SD:6 WSAs that are released by Congress from wilderness study will no longer be subject to BLM Manual 6330 and will be 

managed under general BLM management authorities found in FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and associated regulations 

and policies, in accordance with the adjacent BLM-administered lands, consistent with other resource objectives.

7056 SD:6 Motorized vehicle use is limited to designated roads and trails within the Cedar Mountain and Honeycombs WSAs, which 

may include the routes inventoried during the initial assessment.

7057 SD:6 Motorized vehicle use is limited to designated roads and trails in the Trapper Creek, Medicine Lodge, and Alkali Creek 

WSAs, which may include the routes inventoried during the initial assessment.

7058 SD:6 The Owl Creek, Sheep Mountain, Red Butte, and Bobcat Draw Badlands WSAs are closed to motorized vehicle use, in 

accordance with their respective travel management plans.

7059 SD:6 Acquire inholdings and/or lands or interest in lands within WSA boundaries in cooperation with willing landowners. Manage 

acquired inholdings to preserve their wilderness characteristics.

Worland Approved RMP 135

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.30. 8000 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES (SR) – Social and Economic 

8000 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES (SR) – Social and Economic

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL SR:1 Provide opportunities for economic and social sustainability at the national, regional, and local level. Ensure 

local and regional economic development and local land use plans are considered.

Objectives:

SR:1.1 Consider and address the economic impact of BLM decisions on the sectors affected by public land management 

decisions. Also, coordinate and address the impacts to the social structure of the study region to the extent these same 

management decisions are expected to produce major changes to the study area’s social structure.

SR:1.2 Recognize infrastructure needs, including implementation and maintenance, directly and indirectly associated 

with BLM actions.

GOAL SR:2 Provide sustainable consumptive economic development opportunities for a diversity of resources and resource 

uses that are balanced against nonconsumptive uses that affect market and nonmarket values.

Objective:

SR:2.1 Consider the options to access and utilize resources consistent with a multiple resource management philosophy 

that provides a sustainable and viable economic, cultural, and social environment at the national, regional, and local levels 

while also providing a balance between consumptive and nonconsumptive uses.

GOAL SR:3 Manage use conflicts through public education and outreach efforts.

Objective:

SR:3.1 Work cooperatively with local agencies to foster public awareness, where suitable, through appropriate measures.

8001 SR:1 Ensure BLM actions consider local and regional economic development and land use plans.

8002 SR:2 Incorporate BLM actions that are sensitive to the economic and social health of the affected area.

8003 SR:1 Management refers to available socioeconomic monitoring plans that provide indicators for the economic and social health 

of an affected area.

136 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
8000 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES (SR) – Social and Economic

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

8004 SR:1 Manage in a way that recognizes BLM actions are integrally connected with both socioeconomics and the cultural health of 

the planning area. BLM’s management recognizes and considers local and regional economic development and land use 

plans. To the extent possible, quantify socioeconomic impacts associated with site-specific and programmatic BLM actions. 

Share the results with state and local governmental officials for the purpose of promoting collaborative management, where 

possible, to ensure the affected parties and overlapping jurisdictions are provided that information as required by law.

8005 SR:1 Manage to provide a predictable supply of goods and services within the sustainable limits of the ecosystem, which help 

meet public demand.

Encourage public and private partnerships to achieve the shared economic objectives of providing employment and income 

to local communities while benefiting ecosystem health.

Worland Approved RMP 137

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
Table 3.31. 8000 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES (SR) – Health and Safety

8000 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES (SR) – Health and Safety

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

GOAL SR:4 Manage risks to public health and safety and the environment posed by human-caused hazards and/or natural 

geologic hazards on the National System of Public Lands.

Objectives:

SR:4.1 Protect public health and safety and the environment through complying with federal and state laws and regulations 

governing hazardous substances and the generation of hazardous wastes; maintaining the health of ecosystems though 

assessment, cleanup, and restoration of contaminated sites; and integrating environmental protection and compliance into 

all BLM activities.

SR:4.2 Collaborate with Wyoming DEQ through existing or new MOUs to identify and plan for remediation of Abandoned 

Mine Land sites, including the appropriate level of environmental review prior to on-the-ground work.

SR:4.3 Protect public health and safety through review of geologic hazards and application of appropriate management.

SR:4.4 Manage public exposure to H2S on public lands.

SR:4.5 Reduce or eliminate hazards to human health and safety and the environment from hazardous substances or 

hazardous wastes.

8006 SR:4.1

SR:4.5

Manage hazardous substances to reduce human and environmental risk, restore contaminated lands, and carry out emergency 

response activities.

8007 SR:4.1

SR:4.5

Prepare Environmental Site Assessments on lands acquired or conveyed. Notify the public of conveyance of public lands 

affected by hazardous substances (CERCLA 120[h]).

8008 SR:4.1 Warn the public of the release of hazardous substances. Work to prevent public exposure to contaminated areas.

8009 SR:4.1

SR:4.5

Manage hazardous materials, including but not limited to hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and hazardous materials, 

to reduce the risk to visitors, employees, and the environment, to restore contaminated lands, and to carry out emergency 

response activities, as per appropriate laws, policies, and regulations.

8010 SR:4.1

SR:4.5

Require public notification by the BLM of the type and quantity of the hazardous substances, as required under CERCLA 

120(h), and BLM policy to prepare Environmental Site Assessments for the acquisition and disposal of real property before 

the sale, exchange, or other transfer of public lands on which storage or disposal of hazardous substances is or has been 

known to have occurred.

8011 SR:4.3 Develop a geologic hazards database that ranks threats to public health and safety. Inform applicants and project proponents 

of geologic hazards, and develop mitigation where appropriate.

8012 SR:4.1

SR:4.4

Comply with the requirements of Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Onshore Order #6 relative to H2S plans 

for new oil and gas wells.

8013 SR:4.4 Mitigate potential safety concerns of H2S wells and pipelines through signs, warning sirens, and public education. Safety 

distances are determined through site-specific H2S plans.

138 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
8000 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES (SR) – Health and Safety

Record # Goal/Obj. Decisions

8014 SR:4 Consistent with Wyoming DEQ and EPA requirements, require Hazardous Spill Response Plans for all projects involving 

hazardous materials. Report spills and releases of chemicals, petroleum products, and produced water to Wyoming DEQ 

in accordance with Wyoming law.

8015 SR:4.2 Inventory AML sites for hazards, and prioritize AML sites for reclamation in coordination with Wyoming DEQ. Identify 

AML sites with warning signage and consider adding protective fencing around shafts and adits.

8016 SR:4.3

SR:4.5

Allow activities in AML areas if the impacts can be avoided, minimized and/or compensated.

8017 SR:4.3 Provide warnings for geologic hazards. Identify geologic hazards on case-by-case.

Allow activities in mitigated (remediated) geologic hazard areas.

Worland Approved RMP 139

Chapter 3 Approved Resource Management Plan 

Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions September 2015
1Land Use Classification – criteria are based on that found in existing plans.

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

AML Abandoned Mine Land

AMP Allotment Management Plan 

APD Application for Permit to Drill

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

APLIC Avian Powerline Interaction Committee 

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practice 

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

C&MU Classification and Multiple Use 

CBNG Coalbed Natural Gas

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

COA Conditions of Approval

COT Conservation Objectives Team 

CSU Controlled Surface Use

dBA Decibels with an A-weighted scale 

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality 

DLE Desert Land Entry

DDCT Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool 

DOI United States Department of the Interior 

DPC Desired Plant Community

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EO Executive Order

EPAUnited StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency 

ERMA Extensive Recreation Management Area 

ESD Ecological Site Description

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

FMP Fire Management Plan

FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class 

GHMA General Habitat Management Area 

H2S Hydrogen Sulfide

HA Herd Area

HMA Herd Management Area

HMG Habitat Management Guidelines 

HMP Habitat Management Plan

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code 

IM Instruction Memorandum

LRP Limited reclamation potential 

MLP Master Leasing Plan

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHT National Historic Trail

NOS Notice of Staking

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NSO No Surface Occupancy

NWSRS National Wild and Scenic River System 

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle

PARC Partners in Amphibian and Reptile 

Conservation

PEISProgrammaticEnvironmentalImpactStatement 

PFC Proper Functioning Condition

PFYC Potential Fossil Yield Classification 

PHMA Priority Habitat Management Area 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes 

RAATS Reduced Agent-Area Treatments 

RAMP Recreation Area Management Plan 

RMA Recreation Management Area

RMP Resource Management Plan 

RMZ Recreation Management Zone 

ROD Record of Decision

ROW Rights-of-way

SCZ Setting Consideration Zone

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SMA Special Management Area

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area 

SRP Special Recreation Permit

SUA Surface Use Agreement

TLS Timing Limitation Stipulation 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TMP Travel Management Plan 

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

VRM Visual Resource Management

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

WHMA Wildlife Habitat Management Area 

WO Washington Office

WQD Water Quality Division 

WSA Wilderness Study Area 

WSR Wild and Scenic River

140 Worland Approved RMPChapter 3 Approved Resource ManagementPlan

September 2015
Chapter 4. Consultation, Coordination, and 

Public Involvement
This page intentionally 

left blank
Worland Approved RMP 143

4.1. Consultation and Coordination 

All consultation and coordination efforts to date have been conducted under the auspices of the 

larger Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision project, which encompassed 

the Worland and Cody Field Offices.

Some of the decisions contained in this document will require preparation of detailed, 

project-level National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses prior to implementation.

Additional tribal consultation and public involvement opportunities, including further protest or 

appeal opportunities, may also be conducted. For example, travel management planning decisions 

typically require extensive analysis and outreach prior to implementation. Priorities identified in 

the Approved RMP could change following public and cooperating agency and other stakeholder 

consultation, as well as funding availability.

Cooperating Agency Participation 

For the Bighorn Basin RMP and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) invited local, state, federal, and tribal representatives to participate as 

cooperating agencies. Cooperating agencies participated in developing the alternatives for the 

RMP and EIS, provided data and other information related to their agency responsibilities and 

expertise, commented on administrative drafts of the RMP and EIS, and participated in other 

meetings and teleconferences regarding the revision process. Chapter 5 and Appendix E in the 

Proposed RMP and Final EIS (available on the Bighorn Basin RMP website) includes detailed 

information on cooperating agency engagement and a list of cooperating agencies involved in the 

Bighorn Basin RMP revision effort. 

Endangered Species Act Consultation 

On November 13, 2008, in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provided a list of threatened and endangered species 

likely to occur on BLM-administered land in the Bighorn Basin Planning Area. The USFWS 

commented on draft and supplemental documents during the RMP revision process. The BLM 

continued consultation with the USFWS regarding the RMP revision through completion of the 

Final Biological Assessment and Proposed RMP and Final EIS. Copies of the BLM’s Draft 

and Final Biological Assessments were placed on the Bighorn Basin RMP website for public 

review. The USFWS submitted a programmatic Biological Opinion concurring with the BLM 

effects determinations (Appendix K, Biological Opinion (p. 439)).

Native American Consultation 

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the National 

Historic Preservation Act, and BLM policy, the BLM performed outreach and engaged with 

Native American tribal representatives throughout the RMP planning process. Following the 

scoping process, the BLM sent a letter to Native American tribal representatives requesting 

specific information to help identify areas of special concern for the tribes and presenting the 

opportunity for meetings or field trips with tribal representatives. BLM representatives followed 

these letters with telephone calls to each tribe. On December 17, 2008, the BLM met with tribal 

representatives in Rapid City, South Dakota to discuss the RMP revision. 

On September 19, 2008, the BLM sent letters inviting Native American tribes to be cooperating 

agencies as part of the RMP revision. The BLM asked Native American tribes to comment on 

Chapter 4 Consultation, Coordination, and

Public Involvement

September 2015 Consultation and Coordination
144 Worland Approved RMP

interests or concerns related to management in the Bighorn Basin Planning Area and asked 

tribes to identify any places of traditional religious or cultural importance within the Planning 

Area. In November 2010, May 2011, June 2011, February 2012, May 2012, and June 2012, the 

BLM met with tribal representatives to discuss the RMP and related tribal concerns. Additional 

outreach efforts occurred throughout the RMP revision process. Additional inquiries were 

made of interested tribes who might desire face-to-face opportunities to discuss RMP issues.

In January 2010, Field Managers and staff met with the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officer to discuss the Tribe’s interest in RMP topics. Government-to-government 

consultation with the tribes continued throughout the RMP process. In 2013, the BLM sent 

additional consultation letters to the tribes informing them of the need to prepare a Supplement to 

the Draft RMP and EIS, and welcoming continued feedback. 

Comments have not been received from any tribe during the scoping period or the public comment

periods on the Draft RMP and Draft EIS, Supplement, or Proposed RMP and Final EIS; however, 

consultation is an on-going process. The BLM will continue to engage Native American tribes 

during implementation of the Approved RMP.

Coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency 

The BLM coordinated with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) throughout the RMP 

revision process, including during alternatives development. The EPA participated in the RMP 

revision process as a cooperating agency and provide information related to their responsibilities, 

goals, policies, and expertise. As a cooperating agency, the EPA provided specific input, including 

detailed recommendations on ways to ensure adequate air resource and water resource impact 

analyses and mitigation to address significant impacts. Comments received from the EPA on 

the Draft RMP and Draft EIS, as well as the Proposed RMP and Final EIS, primarily focused 

on the NEPA analysis and protection of air resources and water resources. On June 29, 2015, 

the EPA sent a letter to the BLM acknowledging the changes the BLM made to the Proposed 

RMP and Final EIS in response to the agency’s comments to include additional information on 

and protections for air and water resources. The letter also recommended specific water resource 

protections to be included in the Approved RMP.

Governor’s Consistency Review

The BLM initiated the Wyoming Governor’s Consistency Review required by 43 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 1610.3-2(e) by letter from the BLM State Director dated May 29, 2015. 

The BLM received a letter from the Wyoming Governor dated July 29, 2015. The Governor’s 

Office advised the BLM that the Proposed RMP had a number of inconsistencies and provided 

recommendations. The recommendations had been raised during public participation and included 

questions regarding air and water quality and conformance with the Wyoming Governor’s Core 

Area Strategy for Greater Sage-Grouse conservation. The BLM State Director accepted some of 

the recommendations, did not accept others, and advised the Governor of his decision in writing. 

4.2. Public Involvement

Public involvement occurred throughout the RMP revision process beginning with the publication 

of the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS on October 17, 2008. The Notice of Intent formally 

announced the BLM’s intent to revise the 1988 Washakie, 1998 Grass Creek, and 1990 Cody 

RMPs, and prepare an EIS and initiated the scoping process. The BLM hosted six scoping 

meetings throughout the Bighorn Basin Planning Area in November 2008 and gained input from 

Chapter 4 Consultation, Coordination, and Public 

Involvement

Public Involvement September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 145

interested agencies, organizations, and members of the public on issues that should be addressed 

in the EIS. The publication of the Notice of Availability of the Draft RMP and EIS on April

22, 2011, initiated a 90-day public comment period during which members of the public could 

comment on any aspect of the Draft RMP and EIS. The BLM hosted six public meetings during 

the comment period to inform members of the public about the plan, answer questions, and 

solicit comments. The comments received on the Draft RMP and EIS and BLM’s responses are 

summarized in Appendix A of the Proposed RMP and Final EIS (available on the Bighorn Basin 

RMP website), including copies of the comments themselves. In addition to the formal public 

involvement opportunities, the BLM held open houses, issued periodic planning bulletins, and 

updated the project website in an effort to keep the public informed about the planning process. 

The BLM published the Proposed RMP and Final EIS on May 29, 2015, initiating a 30-day 

protest period in accordance with 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1610.5-2. The 

protest period provided members of the public with standing the opportunity to protest the 

content of the Proposed RMP and Final EIS. The BLM received 24 protest letters. The protest 

letters are available on the Bighorn Basin RMP website, along with the BLM Director’s protest 

resolution report. 

Protest issues related to management for conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse, inconsistency 

with state and county plans and orders, including the Wyoming Governor’s Executive Orders 

for Greater Sage-Grouse, violation of valid existing rights and the multiple use provisions of 

FLPMA, NEPA adequacy due to a lack of an adequate range of alternatives, inadequate response 

to the public comments on the Draft RMP and Draft EIS, master leasing plans, a lack of public 

input and comment regarding new information between the Draft EIS and Final EIS, insufficient 

impact analysis, and that the BLM did not use the best available science.

In accordance with 43 CFR 1610.5-2(b), the decision of the BLM Director is the final decision of 

the Department of the Interior and there are no further administrative remedies available.

September 2015

Chapter 4 Consultation, Coordination, and

Public Involvement
This page intentionally 

left blank
Chapter 5. Plan Implementation 
This page intentionally 

left blank
Worland Approved RMP 149

5.1. Implementing the Plan

Implementation, after a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Resource Management Plan (RMP) 

or RMP amendment is approved, is a continuous and active process. Decisions presented as 

Management Decisions can be characterized as immediate or one-time future decisions. 

Immediate Decisions: These decisions are land use planning decisions that go into effect upon 

signature of the Record of Decision. These include goals, objectives, allowable uses, and 

management direction, such as the allocation of lands as open or closed for saleable mineral sales, 

lands open with stipulations for oil and gas leasing, and off-highway vehicle area designations. 

These decisions require no additional analysis and guide future land management actions and 

subsequent site specific implementation decisions in the planning area. Proposals for future 

actions such as oil and gas leasing, land adjustments, and other allocation-based actions will be 

reviewed against these land use plan decisions to determine if the proposal is in conformance 

with the plan. 

One-Time Future Decisions: These types of decisions include those that are not implemented until 

additional decision-making and site-specific analysis is completed. Examples are implementation 

of the recommendations to withdraw lands from locatable mineral entry or development of travel 

management plans. Future one-time decisions require additional analysis and decision-making 

and are prioritized as part of the BLM budget process. Priorities for implementation of "one-time" 

RMP decisions will be based on several criteria, including: 

● current and projected resource needs and demands

● national BLM management direction

● available resources

General Implementation Schedule of “One-Time” Decisions: Future one-time decisions discussed 

in this Approved RMP will be implemented over a period of years depending on budget and 

staff availability. After issuing the Record of Decision, the BLM will prepare implementation 

plans that establish tentative timeframes for completion of “one-time” decisions identified in the 

Approved RMP. These actions require additional site-specific decision-making and analysis.

This schedule will assist BLM managers and staff in preparing budget requests and in scheduling 

work. However, the proposed schedule must be considered tentative and will be affected by 

future funding, changing program priorities, non-discretionary workloads, and cooperation by 

partners and external publics. Yearly review of the plan will provide consistent tracking of 

accomplishments and provide information that can be used to develop annual budget requests 

to continue implementation. Appendix L, Implementation (p. 545) further describes the 

implementation process for the Approved RMP. 

5.2. Maintaining the Plan

The Approved RMP can be maintained as necessary to reflect minor changes in data. Plan 

maintenance is limited to further refining or documenting a previously approved decision 

incorporated in the plan and/or clarifying previously approved decisions. 

The BLM expects that new information gathered from field inventories and assessments, research, 

other agency studies, and other sources will update baseline data and/or support new management 

techniques, best management practices, and scientific principles. Where monitoring shows land

Chapter 5 Plan Implementation

September 2015 Implementing the Plan
150 Worland Approved RMP

use plan actions or best management practices are not effective, plan maintenance or plan 

amendment may be initiated, as appropriate.

Plan maintenance will be documented in supporting records. Plan maintenance does not require 

formal public involvement, interagency coordination, or the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) analysis required for making new land use plan decisions. 

5.3. Changing the Plan

The Approved RMP may be changed, should conditions warrant, through a plan amendment 

or plan revision process. A plan amendment may become necessary if major changes are 

needed or to consider a proposal or action that is not in conformance with the plan. The results 

of monitoring, evaluation of new data, or policy changes and changing public needs might 

also provide a need for a plan amendment. If several areas of the plan become outdated or 

otherwise obsolete, a plan revision may become necessary. Plan amendments and revisions are 

accomplished with public input and the appropriate level of environmental analysis conducted 

according to the Council on Environmental Quality procedures for implementation of NEPA.

As new information becomes available about Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, including seasonal 

habitats, in coordination with the state wildlife agency and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

based on best available scientific information, the BLM may revise the Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat management area maps and associated management decisions through plan maintenance 

or plan amendment/revision, as appropriate. 

5.4. Plan Evaluation, Adaptive Management, and Monitoring

Plan evaluation is the process by which the plan and monitoring data are reviewed to determine if 

management goals and objectives are being met and if management direction is sound. Land use 

plan evaluations determine if decisions are being implemented, whether mitigation measures are 

satisfactory, whether there are significant changes in the related plans of other entities, whether 

there is new data of significance to the plan, and if decisions should be modified via amendment 

or revision. Monitoring data gathered over time is examined and used to draw conclusions on 

whether management actions are meeting stated objectives, and if not, why. Conclusions are then 

used to make recommendations on whether to continue current management or to identify what 

changes need to be made in management practices to meet objectives.

The BLM will use land use plan evaluations to determine if the decisions in the Approved RMP, 

supported by the accompanying NEPA analysis, are still valid in light of new information

and monitoring data. Evaluations will follow the protocols established by the BLM Land Use 

Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) or other appropriate guidance in effect at the time the evaluation 

is initiated. The Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework for this Approved RMP can be 

found in Appendix D, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Strategy (p. 271). Monitoring 

and evaluation protocols for other resources can be found in Appendix H, Monitoring and

Evaluation (p. 365)

The Approved RMP also includes an adaptive management strategy that includes soft and hard 

triggers and responses. These triggers are not specific to any particular project, but identify habitat 

and population thresholds. Triggers are based on the two key metrics that are being monitored 

during the life of the Approved RMP (i.e., habitat loss and/or population declines). Soft triggers 

Chapter 5 Plan Implementation

Changing the Plan September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 151

September 2015

represent an intermediate threshold indicating that management changes are needed at the 

implementation level to address habitat or population losses. If a soft trigger is tripped during the 

life of the plans, the BLM’s response is to apply more conservative or restrictive conservation 

measures to mitigate for the specific causal factor in the decline of populations and/or habitats, 

with consideration of local knowledge and conditions. These adjustments will be made to 

preclude tripping a hard trigger (which signals more severe habitat loss or population declines). 

Hard triggers represent a threshold indicating that immediate action is necessary to stop a severe 

deviation from Greater Sage-Grouse conservation objectives set forth in the Approved RMP. 

In the event that new scientific information becomes available demonstrating that the hard wired 

response would be insufficient to stop a severe deviation from Greater Sage-Grouse conservation 

objectives set forth in the Approved RMP, the BLM will implement interim management 

direction to ensure that conservation options are not foreclosed. The BLM will also undertake any 

appropriate plan amendments or revision if necessary. More information regarding the Approved 

RMP’s adaptive management strategy can be found in Appendix D, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy (p. 271). 

Chapter 5 Plan Implementation
This page intentionally 

left blank
Chapter 6. References
This page intentionally 

left blank
Worland Approved RMP 155

Chapter 6 References September 2015

Bibliography 

APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) and BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 

2003. Memorandum of Understanding Document #03-8100-0870-MU, February 27, 2003. 

Baruch-Mordo, S., J.S. Evans, J.P. Severson, D.E. Naugle, J.D. Maestas, J.M. Kiesecker, M.J. 

Falkowski, C.A. Hagen, and K.P. Reese. 2013. Saving sage-grouse from trees. Biological 

Conservation: 167: 233-241. 

BHBLWG (Big Horn Basin Sage-grouse Local Working Group). 2007. Sage-grouse Conservation 

Plan for the Big Horn Basin, Wyoming. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management) and DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2003. Assessing 

the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands. February. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy.

BLM and USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2008. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States. Available online: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/geothermal/geothermal_nationwide.html.

BLM and Wyoming SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office). 2014. Programmatic Agreement 

Among the Bureau of Land Management, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers Regarding the 

Manner in Which BLM Will Meet its Responsibilities Under the National Historic 

Preservation Act, State Protocol Between the Wyoming Bureau of Land Management 

and the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officer. March 3. Available online: 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Cultural_Resources/protocol.html.

BLM, ACHP (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation), and National Conference of SHPOs. 

2012. Programmatic Agreement Among the Bureau of Land Management, Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic 

Preservation Officers Regarding the Manner in Which BLM Will Meet its Responsibilities 

Under the National Historic Preservation Act. Available online: http://www.blm.gov/wo/

st/en/prog/more/CRM/blm_preservation_board/prog_agreement.html. 

BLM. 1988. BLM Manual 1613, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available online: 

http://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/360/5_1613_ACEC_Manual%201988.pdf.

BLM. 1994. Red Gulch/Alkali National Backcountry Byway Interpretive Master Plan. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Worland, Wyoming. June. 

BLM. 1997. Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Grazing Management for 

Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the State of Wyoming. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming. Available 

online: http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/grazing.html. August. 

BLM. 2005a. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy 

Development on BLM‐Administered Lands in the Western States. June. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C. 
156 Worland Approved RMP

Chapter 6 References September 2015

BLM. 2005b. Record of Decision for Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program 

and Associated Land Use Plan Amendments. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management. Washington, D.C.

BLM. 2005c. Technical Reference 1734-6 Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C. Available 

online: http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/1734-6rev05.pdf.

BLM. 2007a. Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management 

Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C. Available 

online: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/veg_eis.htm.

BLM. 2007b. Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook. 

H-1742-1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Washington, D.C. Available online: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/

Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.52739.File.dat/h1742- 

1.pdf. 

BLM. 2008. Analysis of the Management Situation. Bighorn Basin Planning Area. Unpublished 

internal report. Cody Field Office, Worland Field Office. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management. Worland, Wyoming. 

BLM. 2009a. Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation for the Bighorn 

Basin Planning Area, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Cody Field Office and Worland Field Office. Available online: 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/rmps/bighorn/docs.html.

BLM. 2009b. Bighorn Basin Cultural Class I Regional Overview. Cody Field Office, Worland 

Field Office. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Cody Field 

Office and Worland Field Office, Wyoming. September.

BLM. 2009c. Proposed Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resource Management Plan Amendments to 

Address Land Use Allocations in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. Washington, D.C. 

BLM. 2009d. Solid Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report: Bighorn Basin 

Resource Management Plan Revision Project. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Cody Field Office and Worland Field Office, Wyoming. Available 

online: http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/rmps/bighorn/docs.html.

BLM. 2011a. Documentation Forms from BLM Cody and Worland Field Offices 

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management. Cody Field Office and Worland Field Office, Wyoming. 

Available online: http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Cody/wild-inv.html and 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Worland/wild-inv.html.

BLM. 2011b. BLM Manual 1626, Travel and Transportation Management. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available online: 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/

blm_manual.Par.38105.File.dat/1626.pdf 
Worland Approved RMP 157

Chapter 6 References September 2015

BLM. 2011c. Instruction Memorandum No. WY-2012-007, Management of Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Production Pits. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. Available online: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/

resources/efoia/IMs/2012.Par.59729.File.dat/wy2012-007.pdf. November 15. 

BLM. 2011d. BLM Handbook H-9113-1, Road Design Handbook. Release 9–388. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available online: 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/

blm_handbook.Par.5566.File.dat/H-9113-1.pdf. 

BLM. 2012a. BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available online: 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/

blm_manual.Par.31915.File.dat/6330.pdf 

BLM. 2012b. Attachment 3, Framework for Sage-Grouse Impacts Analysis for Interstate 

Transmission Lines. Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Gateway West Transmission Line Project, Effects of the Proposed Project 

on Greater Sage-Grouse. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Wyoming State Office. Cheyenne, Wyoming. Available online: 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/cfo/gateway-west/SGAnalysis.html.

BLM. 2013a. Worland Field Office GIS data files. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management. 

BLM. 2013b. Instruction Memorandum No. 2013-128. Sage-Grouse Conservation in Fire 

Operations and Fuels Management. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, D.C. 

BLM. 2014. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas, Bighorn Basin 

Planning Area, Wyoming. Prepared by Wyoming Reservoir Management Group. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 

Cagney J., E. Bainter, B. Budd, T. Christiansen, V. Herren, M. Holloran, B. Rashford, M. Smith, 

and J. Williams. 2010. Grazing influence, objective development, and management in 

Wyoming’s greater sage-grouse habitat. University of Wyoming College of Agriculture 

Extension Bulletin B-1203. Laramie.

Chambers, J.C., D.A. Pyke, J.D. Maestas, M. Pellant, C.S. Boyd, S.B. Campbell, S. Espinosa, 

D.W. Havlina, K.E. Mayer, and A. Wuenschel. 2014. Using resistance and resilience 

concepts to reduce impacts of invasive annual grasses and altered fire regimes on the 

sagebrush ecosystem and greater sage-grouse: A strategic multi-scale approach.

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 73 p. 

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage 

sage-grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985. 

Connelly, J.W., K.P. Reese, and M.A. Schroeder. 2003. Monitoring of Greater sage-grouse 

habitats and populations. University of Idaho College of Natural Resources Experiment 

Station Bulletin 80. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 
158 Worland Approved RMP

Chapter 6 References September 2015

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of 

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats - Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies.

DOE and BLM. 2008. Record of Decision for Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement, Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Land in the 11 Western 

States (DOE/EIS-0386). Available online: http://corridoreis.anl.gov/documents/docs/

Energy_Corridors_final_signed_ROD_1_14_2009.pdf 

Doherty, K.E. 2008. Sage-grouse and Energy Development: Integrating Science with 

Conservation Planning to Reduce Impacts. Thesis, University of Montana. 

Doherty, K.E., D.E. Naugle, J.D. Tack, B.L Walker, J.M. Graham, and J.L. Beck. 2014. Linking 

Conservation Actions to Demography: Grass Height Explains Variation in Greater Sage 

grouse Nest Survival. Wildlife Biology 20(6): 320-325. 

DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior). 2006. Scientific Inventory of Onshore Federal Lands 

Oil and Gas Resources and Reserves and the Extent and Nature of Restrictions or 

Impediments to their Development - Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000. U.S. 

Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C.

Hagen, C.A., J.W. Connelly, and M.A. Schroeder. 2007. A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse 

Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats. Wildlife Biology 13 

(Supplement 1):42-50. 

Holloran, M.J., and S.H. Anderson. 2005. Spatial Distribution of Greater Sage-grouse nests in 

relatively contiguous sagebrush habitats. Condor 107(4): 742-752. 

Manier, D.J., D.J.A. Wood, Z.H. Bowen, R.M. 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 (Centrocercus urophasianus). Department of Interior, U.S. 

Geological Survey. Denver, CO. Available online: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1098/.

Manier, D.J., Z.H. Bowen, M.L. Brooks, M.L. Casazza, P.S. Coates, P.A. Deibert, S.E. 

Hanser, and D.H. Johnson. 2014. Conservation buffer distance estimates for Greater 

Sage-Grouse—A review: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014–1239, 14 p. 

Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141239.

Miller R.F., J.D. Bates, T.J. Svejcar, F.B. Pierson, L.E. Eddleman. 2005. Biology, 

Ecology and Management of Western Juniper. Technical Bulletin 152. 

OSU, Agricultural Experiment Station. Corvallis, OR. Available online: 

http://juniper.oregonstate.edu/bibliography/documents/phpQ65pOk_tb152.pdf.

Pilliod, D.S. and E. Wind (editors). 2008. Habitat Management Guidelines for Amphibians and 

Reptiles of the Northwestern U.S. and Canada. PARC Technical Publication HMG-4. 

Birmingham, Alabama.

Sage-Grouse NTT (National Technical Team). 2011. A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures. December.
Worland Approved RMP 159

Chapter 6 References September 2015

Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes, D.E. Naugle, P.D. Makela, D.A. Nance, and J.W. Karl, eds. 2015. 

Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: A Multiscale Assessment Tool. Technical 

Reference 6710-1. Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies, Denver, Colorado. 

USFS, BLM, BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs), USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), and 

NPS (National Park Service). 2009. Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland 

Fire Management Policy.

USFWS. 2010. Federal Register - 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater 

Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. March 4.

USFWS. 2013. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: 

Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Denver, CO. February. 

USFWS. 2014. Memorandum: Greater Sage-Grouse: Additional Recommendations to Refine 

Land Use Allocations in Highly Important Landscapes. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. October 27, 2014. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2008. Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of 

the Bighorn Basin Province, Wyoming and Montana, 2008. Fact Sheet 2008-3050, 2 pp. 

U.S. Geological Survey. Available online: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3050/. Accessed 

March 3, 2009. 

WAFWA (Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies). 2007. Wild Sheep Working Group 

Initial Subcommittee Recommendations for Domestic Sheep and Goat Management in 

Wild Sheep Habitat. June 12. Available online: http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/

public/NE/WAFWA_Wild_Sheep_Working_Group_Recommendations.pdf. 

WGFD (Wyoming Game and Fish Department). 2010a. Recommendations for Development of 

Oil and Gas Resources within Crucial and Important Wildlife Habitats. Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

WGFD. 2010b. Wildlife Protection Recommendations for Wind Energy Development in 

Wyoming (Draft). March. 74 pp. 

WGFD. 2011. Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to be Consistent with Wyoming Executive 

Order 2011–5; Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection. Available online: 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/resources/efoia/IMs/2012.Par.76500.File.dat/

wy2012-019atch6.pdf. 

Wyoming DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality). 2013. E. Coli Total Maximum 

Daily Loads for the Big Horn River Watershed. Topical Report RSI-2289. 

Available online: http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/watershed/Program%20Documents/

TMDL-Carry%20Over%20to%20New%20Site/2.%20Completed%20Projects/ 

EPA%20Approved%20Big%20Horn%20E%20coli%20TMDL_April%202014.pdf.

Wyoming Interagency Vegetation Committee. 2002. Wyoming Guidelines for Managing 

Sagebrush Communities with Emphasis on Fire Management. Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department and Wyoming BLM. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 53 pp. 
160 Worland Approved RMP

Chapter 6 References September 2015

Wyoming Office of the Governor. 2011. Executive Order 2011-5, Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Area Protection. Available online: http://will.state.wy.us/sis/wydocs/execorders/EO2011-

05.pdf. 

Wyoming Office of the Governor. 2013. Executive Order 2013-3, Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area

- Grazing Adjustments. Available online: http://will.state.wy.us/sis/wydocs/execorders/

EO2013-03.pdf. 

Wyoming Office of the Governor. 2015. Executive Order 2015-4, Greater

Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection. Available online: http://www.wyfb.org/

images%5CSGExecutiveOrder2015.pdf. 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Working Group. 2003. Wyoming Greater Sage-grouse Conservation 

Plan. 97 pp. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Wyoming State-wide Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Interaction Working Group. 2004. Final 

Report and Recommendations. Available online: http://migrationinitiative.org/sites/

migration.wygisc.org/themes/responsive_blog/images/SIWG_FINALREPORT.PDF.
Worland Approved RMP 161

September 2015 Glossary

Glossary

Abandoned Mine: An abandoned hardrock mine on or affecting public lands 

administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), at which 

exploration, development, mining, reclamation, maintenance, 

and inspection of facilities and equipment, and other operations 

ceased as of January 1, 1981 (the effective date of BLM’s Surface 

Management regulations codified at 43 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) Subpart 3809) with no evidence demonstrating that the 

miner intends to resume mining. For many abandoned mines, no 

current claimant of record or viable potentially responsible party 

exists. Abandoned mines generally include a range of mining 

impacts, or features that may pose a threat to water quality, public 

safety, and/or the environment (BLM no date).

Abandoned Mine Land 

(AML) Program:

BLM program that focuses on reclaiming hardrock abandoned 

mine lands on or affecting public lands administered by BLM. The 

primary goal of the program is to remediate and reduce actual or 

potential threats that pose physical safety risks and environmental 

degradation. BLM applies risk-based criteria and uses the watershed 

approach to establish project priorities. The program also works to 

return mine-impacted lands to productive use(s) (BLM No Date).

Active Use: The current authorized livestock grazing use. Active use may

constitute a portion, or all, or permitted use. Active use does not 

include a temporary non-use or suspended use of forage within 

all or a portion of an allotment. 

Additionality: The conservation benefits of compensatory mitigation are

demonstrably new and would not have resulted without the 

compensatory mitigation project (BLM Manual Section 1794). 

Allotment: An area of land where one or more livestock operators graze their

livestock. Allotments are BLM lands, but may also include other 

federally managed, state-owned, and private lands. An allotment 

may include one or more separate pastures. Livestock numbers and 

periods of use are specified for each allotment. 

Allotment 

Categorization: 

Grazing allotments and rangeland areas used for livestock grazing 

are assigned to an allotment category during resource management 

planning (BLM 1987; BLM 2008). Allotment categorization is 

used to establish priorities for distributing available funds and 

personnel during plan implementation to achieve cost-effective 

improvement of rangeland resources. Categorization is also used to 

organize allotments into similar groups for purposes of developing 

multiple use prescriptions, analyzing site-specific and cumulative 

impacts, and determining trade-offs.

● Category I (Improve):The category for allotments where

(1) present range condition is unsatisfactory and where range 

condition is expected to decline further; (2) present grazing 
162 Worland Approved RMP

Glossary September 2015

management is not adequate; (3) the allotment has potential 

for medium to high vegetative production but production 

is low to moderate; (4) resource conflicts/controversy with 

livestock grazing are evident; or (5) there is potential for positive 

economic return on public investment. Additionally, allotments 

are categorized as Improve where current livestock grazing 

management or level of use on public land is, or is expected to 

be, a significant causal factor in the non-achievement of land 

health standards, or where a change in mandatory terms and 

conditions in the grazing authorization is or may be necessary. 

When identifying Category I allotments, review condition of 

critical habitat, conflicts with Greater Sage-Grouse, and whether 

projects have been proposed specifically for implementing the 

Healthy Lands Initiative.

● Category "M" (Maintain): The category for allotments where

(1) the present range condition an management are satisfactory 

with good to excellent condition and will be maintained under 

present management, or fair condition and improving with 

improvement expected to continue under present management, 

or opportunities for BLM management are limited because 

percentage of public land is low or acreage of public lands is 

small; (2) the allotment has a potential for moderate or high 

vegetative production and is producing at or near this potential; 

(3) there are no significant land-use resource conflicts with 

livestock grazing; (4) land ownership status may or may not 

limit management opportunities; or (5) opportunities for positive 

economic return from public investment may exist. Additionally, 

allotments are categorized as Maintain where land health 

standards are met or where livestock grazing on public land is 

not a significant causal factor for not meeting the standards and 

current livestock management is in conformance with guidelines 

developed by the State Directors in consultation with Resource 

Advisory Councils. Allotments where an evaluation of land 

health standards has not been completed, but existing monitoring 

data indicates that resource conditions are satisfactory.

● Category "C" (Custodial): The category for allotments where

(1) present range condition is not in a downward trend; (2) 

the allotment has a low vegetative production potential and 

is producing near this level; (3) there may or may not be

limited conflicts between livestock grazing and other resources;

(4) present management is satisfactory or is the only logical 

management under existing conditions; and (5) opportunities 

for a positive economic return on public investments do not 

exist (BLM 1990). Additionally, allotments are categorized as 

Custodial where public lands produce less than 10 percent of the 

forage in the allotment or are less than 10 percent of the land 

area. An allotment should generally not be designated Category 

C if the public land in the allotment contains: (1) critical habitat
Worland Approved RMP 163

September 2015 Glossary

Allotment Management 

Plan:

for a threatened or endangered species or (2) wetlands negatively 

affected by livestock grazing.

A written program of livestock grazing management, including 

supportive measures if required, designed to attain specific 

management goals in a grazing allotment.

Ambient (noise level): Sometimes called background noise level, reference sound level,

or room noise level is the background sound pressure level at a 

given location, normally specified as a reference level to study a 

new intrusive sound. 

Analysis Area: Any lands, regardless of jurisdiction, for which the BLM

synthesizes, analyzes, and interprets data for information that 

relates to planning for BLM-administered lands. 

Animal-unit: Considered to be one mature cow of approximately 1,000 pounds, 

either dry or with calf up to 6 months of age, or their equivalent, 

based on a standard amount of forage consumed. 

Animal Unit Month 

(AUM):

Appropriate 

Management Level:

A standardized measurement of the amount of forage necessary 

for the sustenance of one cow unit or its equivalent for one month 

(approximately 800 pounds of forage).

The number of adult horses or burros (expressed as a range with an 

upper and lower limit) to be managed within a herd management 

area. The appropriate management level range is the number of 

adult wild horses and burros within which herd size will be allowed 

to fluctuate. The upper limit of the range is the maximum number 

of wild horses and burros that results in a thriving natural ecological 

balance and avoids a deterioration of the range; the lower limit of 

the range is the number that allows the population to grow to the 

appropriate management level upper limit over 4 to 5 years, without 

the need for gathers to remove excess wild horse and burros in the 

interim.

Archeological site: A place that holds evidence of past human activity.

Archeology: A method of the discovery, study, and reconstruction of past human 

cultures from material remains such as artifacts and sites.

Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern 

(ACEC):

An area within the public lands designated for special management 

attention to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important 

historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or 

other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety 

from natural hazards. According to 43 CFR 1601.0-5a, “The 

identification of...[an] ACEC shall not, of itself, change or prevent 

change of the management or use of public lands.” 

Artifact: Any object made, modified, or used by humans, usually but not 

necessarily portable.
164 Worland Approved RMP

Glossary September 2015

Associated Settings: The geographic extent of the resources, qualities, and values 

or landscape elements within the surrounding environment that 

influence the trail experience and contribute to resource protection. 

Settings associated with a National Scenic or Historic Trail include 

scenic, historic, cultural, recreation, natural (including biological, 

geological, and scientific), and other landscape elements (see 

resources, qualities, and values). 

Avoid: A term used to address mitigation of some activity (i.e., resource 

use). Paraphrasing the Council on Environmental Quality 

Regulations (40 CFR 1508.20), avoidance means to circumvent, or 

bypass, an impact altogether by not taking a certain action, or parts 

of an action. Therefore, the term “avoid” does not necessarily 

prohibit a proposed activity, but it may require the relocation of an 

action, or the total redesign of an action to eliminate any potential 

impacts resulting from it.

Avoidance Areas: Areas where negative routing factors exist. ROWs either will not be 

granted in these areas, or—if granted—will be subject to stringent 

terms and conditions. In other words, ROWs would be restricted 

(but not necessarily prohibited) in these avoidance areas. 

Avoidance Mitigation: Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or 

parts of an action (40 CFR 1508.20(a)) (e.g., may also include 

avoiding the impact by moving the proposed action to a different 

time or location).

Back Country Byway: A component of the national scenic byway system which focuses

primarily on corridors along back country roads which have high 

scenic, historic, archaeologic, or other public interest values. The 

road may vary from a single track bike trail to a low speed, paved 

road that traverses back country areas. Segments of back country 

byways are subdivided into four types based on the characteristics 

of the roads (BLM 1993). 

Basal Area: An area of land that is occupied by the cross-section of tree trunks 

and stems at their base.

Baseline: The pre-existing condition of a defined area and/or resource that 

can be quantified by an appropriate metric. During environmental 

reviews, the baseline is considered the affected environment that 

exists at the time of the review’s initiation, and is used to compare 

predictions of the effects of the proposed action or a reasonable 

range of alternatives.

Basin: An extent of land where water from rain or snow melt drains 

downhill into a body of water, such as a river, lake, reservoir, 

estuary, wetland, sea, or ocean. The basin includes the streams and 

rivers that convey the water as well as the land surfaces from which 

water drains into those channels, and is separated from adjacent 

basins by a drainage divide. 
Worland Approved RMP 165

September 2015 Glossary

Best Management 

Practices (BMP):

Big Game Crucial 

Winter Range:

Biologically Significant 

Unit:

A suite of techniques that guide, or may be applied to, management 

actions to aid in achieving desired outcomes. Best management 

practices are often developed in conjunction with land use plans, 

but they are not considered a land use plan decision unless the land 

use plan specifies that they are mandatory. They may be updated or 

modified without a plan amendment if they are not mandatory. 

Winter habitat on which a wildlife species depends for survival. 

Because of severe weather conditions or other limiting factors, no 

alternative habitat would be available.

In Wyoming, the Biologically Significant Unit for Greater

Sage-Grouse is the Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMAs), 

regardless of whether the PHMAs cross multiple planning 

boundaries. 

Casual Collecting: The collecting of a reasonable amount of common invertebrate and

plant paleontological resources for non-commercial personal use, 

either by surface collection or the use of non-powered hand tools 

resulting in only negligible disturbance to the Earth's surface and 

other resources.

Category (see Allotment 

Categorization):

The criteria used for the placement of the allotments into categories 

based on resource potential, resource use conflicts or controversy, 

opportunity of positive economic return on public investments, and 

the present management situation (BLM 1990). 

Cattleguard: A device or structure, at points where roads or railroads cross a 

fence line, that is designed so vehicular travel is uninterrupted, but 

crossing by all kinds of livestock is restricted.

Causal: Relating to a cause or causes; relating to a cause of effect.

C Category (Custodial): See Allotment Categorization. 

Cheatgrass (Bromus 

tectorum):

An annual grass that forms tufts up to 2 feet tall. The leaves and 

sheaths are covered in short, soft hairs. The flowers occur as 

drooping, open, terminal clusters that can have a greenish, red, or 

purple hue. Flowering occurs in the early summer. These annual 

plants will germinate in fall or spring (fall is more common), 

and senescence usually occurs in summer. Cheatgrass invades 

rangelands, pastures, prairies, and other open areas. Cheatgrass 

has the potential to completely alter the ecosystems it invades. It 

can completely replace native vegetation and change fire regimes

and is most problematic in areas of the western United States with 

lower precipitation levels.

Closed: Generally denotes that an area is not available for a particular use or 

uses; refer to specific definitions found in law, regulations, or policy 

guidance for application to individual programs.
166 Worland Approved RMP

Glossary September 2015

Commercial Forestland: Capable of producing 20 cubic feet of wood fiber from commercial

species per acre per year and has not been withdrawn from forest 

product harvest by law or statute. 

Communication Site 

Management Plan:

A plan that provides for effective administration of a 

communications site. The site plan defines the principles and 

technical standards adopted in the site designation. The site plan 

provides direction for the day-to-day operations of the site in 

connection with the lease. The site plan delineates the types of uses 

that are appropriate at the site and the technical and administrative 

requirements for management of the site. The site plan should 

reflect the complexity of the current situation and the anticipated 

demand for the site. 

Community: (1) An assemblage of populations of plants and/or animals in

a common spatial arrangement. (2) An assemblage of plants 

occurring together at any point in time, while denoting no particular 

ecological status. (3) A unit of vegetation. 

Community Phase: A unique assemblage of plants and associated dynamic soil property 

levels that can occur within a state (Caudle et al. 2013).

Compensatory 

Mitigation: 

Compensatory 

Mitigation Projects:

Compensatory 

Mitigation Sites:

Compensating for the (residual) impact by replacing or providing 

substitute resources or environments (40 CFR 1508.20). 

Specific, on-the-ground actions to improve and/or protect 

habitats (e.g., chemical vegetation treatments, land acquisitions, 

conservation easements).

The durable areas where compensatory mitigation projects will 

occur.

Contrast: Opposition or unlikeness of different forms, lines, colors, or texture 

in a landscape.

Controlled Surface Use 

(CSU):

Surface occupancy or use will be restricted or prohibited unless the 

operator and surface managing agency arrive at an acceptable plan 

for mitigation of anticipated impacts. Identified resource values 

require special operational constraints that may modify the lease 

rights. CSU is used for operating guidance, not as a substitute for 

the no surface occupancy (NSO) or timing limitations. 

Cool-Season Plant: A plant which generally makes the major portion of its growth

during the late fall, winter, and early spring. Cool-season species 

generally exhibit the C3 photosynthetic pathway. 

Core Habitat: Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat (as defined in the State of 

Wyoming Executive Order 2015-4) is one of two components of 

Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Management Areas. Core 

habitats are state-designated areas identified as the most important 

for Greater Sage-Grouse and include breeding, late brood-rearing,
Worland Approved RMP 167

September 2015 Glossary

and wintering seasonal habitat. It does not include known migration 

or connectivity corridors. 

Cover: (1) The plants or plant parts living or dead, on the surface of the 

ground. Vegetative cover or herbage cover is composed of living 

plants and litter cover of dead parts of plants. (2) The area of 

ground cover by plants of one or more species.

Critical Growing Season 

(Growth Period):

A specified period of time in which plants need to develop sufficient 

carbohydrate reservoir and produce seed. This period of time varies 

by growth form. For example: Cool season bunchgrasses: May 1 – 

July 15; Warm season perennial grasses: June 1 – July 30; Riparian 

vegetation: July 1 through August 30. 

Cultivation: The process of preparing the land and caring for growing crops. 

Cultural Resources 

Setting Consideration 

Zones (SCZ):

Zones of view shed management of “X” distance or the visual 

horizon, whichever is closer, from the external site boundaries, 

created to reduce visual and acoustic impacts to cultural resources 

for which the elements of setting and association are important.

Where the vegetation, rock formations, open space, and bodies of 

water that made up the environmental setting during the periods of 

prehistoric or historic occupation or use are intact, management 

actions will be modified to maintain the long term integrity of 

those features. The current integrity of environmental features or 

factors related to the location, use, formation, or preservation of 

the site will be the important factors for determining appropriate 

management actions.

Culture: The customs, beliefs, and ways of life of a group of people. 

dB (decibel): A unit of measurement of the loudness or strength of a signal. One

decibel is considered the smallest difference in sound level that 

the human ear can discern. Decibels are a relative measurement 

derived from two signal levels: a reference input level and an 

observed output level. A decibel is the logarithm of the ratio of the 

two levels. One Bel is when the output signal is 10 times that of 

the input and one decibel is 1/10 of a Bel.

Deferment: Delay of livestock grazing on an area for an adequate period of time

to provide for plant reproduction, establishment of new plants, or 

restoration of vigor of existing plants. 

Deferred Grazing: The use of deferment in grazing management of a management

unit, but not in a systematic rotation including other units. 

Deferred-rotation: Any grazing system which provides for a systematic rotation of 

the deferment among pastures.

Designated Roads and 

Trails:

A network of roads and trails specifically identified as the official 

travel and transportation network for a given area on which some 

type of motorized vehicle use is allowed either seasonally or 
168 Worland Approved RMP

Glossary September 2015

year-long. Designated roads and trails are identified on maps, by 

signs in the field, and may be assigned road numbers for inventory 

and identification purposes. This may include routes on the official 

BLM transportation plan that are routinely maintained as well 

as routes that were user-created and which receive no regular 

maintenance. Vehicle travel is permitted only on roads and vehicle 

routes designated by the BLM. In areas where no formal travel 

management plan has been implemented, motorized use is limited 

to existing roads and trails on an interim basis. 

Desired Future 

Condition:

A portrayal of the land or resource conditions which are expected to 

result if goals and objectives are fully achieved.

Desired Future Condition for Riparian and Wetlands (after 20-40 

years of management):

● Proper functioning conditions on all riparian and wetland 

habitats.

● Riparian and wetland vegetation supports proper functioning 

condition of biologic, hydrologic, and physical components of 

streams and wetlands.

● Systems are vertically stable (no downcutting).

● Floodplain connectivity. 

● Herbaceous plant communities are composed of functional and 

structural plant groups that are dominated by deep-rooted native 

speciesthat support streambank and shoreline stability, floodplain 

development, water quality, and nutrient cycling. Also includes 

woody species and cottonwoods within the site’s potential.

● Management of invasive, noxious, and undesirable species.

● Provide “Yellow, Red, and Blue Ribbon” streams on those 

systems with fish habitat potential.

Desired Plant 

Community (DPC):

Of the several plant communities that may occupy a site, the DPC 

is the community that has been identified through a management 

plan to best meet the plan’s objectives for the site. At a minimum, 

it must protect the site.

Destination RecreationTourism Market:

National or regional recreation-tourism visitors and other 

constituents who value public lands as recreation-tourism 

destinations. Major investments in facilities and visitor assistance 

are authorized within special recreation management areas 

(SRMAs) where the BLM’s strategy is to target demonstrated 

destination recreation-tourism market demand. Here, recreation 

management actions are geared toward meeting primary recreationtourism market demand for specific activity, experience, and 

benefit opportunities. These opportunities are produced through 

maintenance of prescribed natural resource setting character and by 

structuring and implementing management, marketing, monitoring, 

and administrative actions accordingly.
Worland Approved RMP 169

September 2015 Glossary

Determination (BLM 

Rangeland Health 

Standards):

Document recording the authorized officer’s finding that existing 

grazing management practices or levels of grazing use on public 

lands either are or are not significant factors in failing to achieve 

the standards and conform with the guidelines within a specified 

geographic area (preferably watershed or a group of contiguous 

watersheds) (BLM 2001). 

Disruptive Activity: Those activities that disrupt or alter wildlife actions at key times,

during important activities, or in important areas (feeding, breeding, 

nesting, herd movement, winter habitat). Disruptive activities are 

those which can result in reductions of energy reserves, health, 

reproductive success, or population. Some examples of disruptive 

activities include geophysical (seismic), well plugging or workover operations that last 24 to 48 hours or longer, road reclamation, 

and wild horse grazing and management. Emergency activities, 

rangeland monitoring, recreational activities, livestock grazing and 

management, and other field activities are not considered disruptive 

activities. 

Domestic: An animal that has been tamed or made usable for humans. 

Durability (protective 

and ecological): 

The maintenance of the effectiveness of a mitigation project for 

the duration of the associated impacts, which includes resource, 

administrative/legal, and financial considerations (adopted and 

modified from BLM Manual Section 1794). 

Ecological Site: A distinctive kind of land with specific soil and other physical

characteristics that differs from other kinds of land in its ability 

to produce distinctive kinds and amounts of vegetation and in its 

ability to respond to management actions and natural disturbances. 

Ecological Site 

Description (ESD):

The official documentation of an ecological site describing 

the distinctive properties and characteristics, the abiotic and

biotic relationships, and the ecological dynamics of the site. In 

addition, an ESD provides interpretations about land uses and 

ecosystem services that a particular ecological site can support 

and management alternatives for achieving land management 

objectives.

Ecological Status: Ecological status is the present state of vegetation of a range site

in relation to the potential natural community for that site. It is an 

expression of the relative degree to which the kinds, proportions 

and amounts of plants in a plant community resemble that of the 

potential natural plant community for the site. Four classes are 

used to express the degree to which the production or composition 

of the present plant community reflects that of the potential natural 

community (climax).

Ecosystem: A complete, interacting system of living organisms and the land

and water that make up their environment; the home places of all 

living things, including humans. 
170 Worland Approved RMP

Glossary September 2015

Eligible River: An eligible river segment found through administrative study to

meet the criteria for designation as a component of the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System, as specified in Section 4(a) of the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Endangered Species: A plant or animal species whose prospects for survival and

reproduction are in immediate jeopardy, as designated by the 

Secretary of the Interior, and as is further defined by the Endangered 

Species Act.

Enhanced Recovery: The use of artificial means to increase the amount of hydrocarbons 

that can be recovered from a reservoir. A reservoir depleted by 

normal extraction usually can be restored by secondary or tertiary 

methods of enhanced recovery. 

Environment: The conditions around an area that affect it. These include 

geography, soil, climate, plants, and animals. 

Ephemeral Stream: A stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation, and

whose channel is at all times above the water table. Confusion 

over the distinction between intermittent and ephemeral streams 

may be minimized by applying Meinzer’s suggestion that the term 

“ephemeral” be arbitrarily restricted to streams that do not flow 

continuously for at least 30 days (Prichard et al. 1998). Ephemeral 

streams support riparian areas when streamside vegetation reflects 

the presence of permanent subsurface water.

Evaluation (BLM 

Rangeland Health 

Standards):

An evaluation is conducted to arrive at two outcomes. Firstly, an 

evaluation conducts an analysis and interpretation of the findings 

resulting from the assessment, relative to land health standards, 

to evaluate the degree of achievement of land health standards. 

Secondly, an evaluation conducts an analysis and interpretation 

of information--be it observations or data from inventories 

and monitoring--on the causal factors for not achieving a land 

health standard. An evaluation of the causal factors provides the 

foundation for a determination (see Determination) (BLM 2001).

Evidence: Data that are used to prove a point, or that clearly indicate a 

situation.

Excavation 

(Archeological):

Carefully removing layers of dirt or sediment to find objects or 

features made by people from long ago.

Exceedance: An event in which measurements of ambient air quality are above 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) or Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) standard set for a 

particular pollutant. For example, an annual average nitrogen 

dioxide value of 110 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) is an 

exceedance of both the NAAQS and Wyoming DEQ annual average 

standard for nitrogen dioxide of 100 μg/m3. 
Worland Approved RMP 171

September 2015 Glossary

Exclusion Areas: Areas with sensitive resource values where rights-of-way (ROWs)

and 302 permits, leases, and easements would not be authorized. 

Existing Roads and 

Trails (interim existing 

roads and trails): 

Extensive Recreation 

Management Areas 

(ERMA):

Defined as routes existing prior to the date the OHV designation is 

announced in the Federal Register (FR). These routes may have 

been constructed and maintained or may be two-track routes created 

and maintained by the passage of motor vehicles and which receive 

regular use. Roads and trails may be added, modified, or deleted by 

the BLM from the inventory through authorizations as needs arise. 

Recent Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management 

guidance (BLM Handbook 8342-1) directed the BLM to manage 

all BLM-administered public lands under “Designated Roads and 

Trails.” Existing roads and trails are to be used on an interim basis 

until a Travel Management Plan designates each individual route as 

open or closed for motorized use. The terms “interim existing roads 

and trails” or “existing roads and trails” are used to identify areas of 

low priority for travel management planning. 

See Recreation Management Areas. 

Extinction: Bring to an end, wiping out, or destruction. 

Facility (Energy and 

Mining):

Human constructed assets designed and created to serve a particular 

convenience or service that is affixed to specific locations, such as 

oil and gas well pads and associated infrastructure.

Fire Management Plan: Identifies appropriate strategies to achieve resource objectives. 

Identifies fire policy, objectives, and prescribed actions; may 

include maps, charts, tables, and statistical data.

Fire Regime Condition 

Class:

A classification of the amount of departure from the natural 

fire regime. The departure results in changes to one or more of 

the following ecological components: vegetation characteristics 

(e.g., species composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy

closure,mosaic pattern); fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, 

and pattern; and other associated disturbance (e.g., insect and 

disease mortality, grazing, drought). The three condition classes 

are listed below:

Condition Class 1: 

● The historic disturbance regime is largely intact and functioning 

(e.g., has not missed a fire return interval)

● Potential intensity and severity of fire within historic range

● Effects of disease and insects within historic range

● Hydrologic functions within normal historic range

● Vegetation composition and structure resilient to disturbances 

● Nonnative species currently not present or to a limited extent

● Low risk of loss for key ecosystem components. 
172 Worland Approved RMP

Glossary September 2015

Condition Class 2: 

● Moderate alterations to historic disturbance regime evident (e.g., 

missed one or more fire return intervals)

● Effects of disease and insects pose an increased risk of loss of 

key community components 

● Riparian areas and associated hydrologic function show 

measurable signs of adverse departure from historic conditions 

● Vegetation composition and structure shifted toward conditions 

less resilient to disturbances 

● Populations of nonnative species may have increased,increasing 

the risk of further increases following disturbance.

Condition Class 3: 

● Historic disturbance regime significantly altered; historic 

disturbance processes and impacts may be precluded (e.g., 

missed several fire return intervals)

● Effects of disturbance (fire, insects, and disease) may cause 

significant or complete loss of key community components 

● Hydrologic functions may be adversely altered; high potential for 

increased sedimentation and reduced streamflows

● Invasive, nonnative species may be common and in some cases 

the dominant species on the landscape; disturbance will likely 

increase both the dominance and geographic extent of these 

invasive species

● Highly altered vegetation composition and structure predisposes 

community to disturbance events outside the range of historic 

availability; disturbance may have effects not observed or 

measured before.

Flaring/Venting: The controlled burning (flare) or release (vent) of natural gas

that cannot be processed for sale or use because of technical or 

economic reasons. 

Floristic Province: Areas of ecological and biological issues similarity (Stiver et al.

2006). 

Fluid Mineral Leasing 

Categories:

BLM land use plans identify the following leasing decisions for 

fluid leasable minerals consistent with the goals and objectives for 

natural resources within the planning area: 

● Closed: Areas closed to oil and gas leasing are areas where it has 

been determined that other land uses or resource values cannot 

be adequately protected with even the most restrictive oil and 

gas leasing stipulations; appropriate protection can be ensured 

only by closing the areas to oil and gas leasing for the life of 

the plan. Lands currently under lease would remain leased for 

the life of the leases. After expiration of these leases, no lands 

would be available for lease.

● Open with Major Constraints: Any stipulations or conditions 

of approval which may restrict the timing or placement of oil and 

gas developments and may result in an operator dropping the 
Worland Approved RMP 173

September 2015 Glossary

development proposal. Major constraints include NSOs, areas 

of overlapping TLS that last more than 6 months, areas closed 

to surface-disturbing activity, areas where surface-disturbing 

activity is prohibited, and VRM Class I areas. Leaseholders have 

the right to explore, develop, and produce mineral resources from 

any valid, existing lease, even if the area containing the lease was 

proposed to be closed to future leasing.

● Open with Moderate Constraints: Any stipulations or 

conditions of approval which may restrict the timing or placement 

of oil and gas development, but would not otherwise restrict the 

overall development. Moderate constraints include all timing 

restrictions (TLS), CSUs, areas where surface-disturbing activity 

is avoided, and VRM Class II areas.

● Open: Areas open to leasing, subject to existing laws, 

regulations, and formal orders; and the terms and conditions of 

the standard lease form.

Flushing Livestock: Flushing livestock is the holding of livestock in an invasive, 

nonnative plant species (INPS) seed-free area where they are fed an 

INPS seed-free ration for 72 hours, thus flushing INPS seed from 

the animals’ digestive systems.

Foothill: A low hill near the base of a mountain or range of mountains. 

Forage: Browse and herbage that are available and may provide food 

for grazing animals or be harvested for feeding. To search for or 

consume forage.

Foreground Zone: An area that can be seen from a travel route for a distance of three

miles (foreground) where management activities might be viewed.

Forestland: Capable of producing 20 cubic feet of wood fiber from commercial

species per acre per year.

Fossil: Fossils are any naturally occurring evidence of life older than 

10,000 years.

Fundamentals of 

Rangeland Health: 

Overarching principles of rangeland health, listed at 43 CFR § 

4180.1, which establish BLM policy of managing for healthy 

rangelands (60 FR at 9954). State or regional standards and 

guidelines must provide for conformance with the Fundamentals of 

Rangeland Health (43 CFR § 4180.2(b)) (BLM 2001). 

Geographic Information 

System (GIS):

A computer system capable of storing, analyzing, and displaying 

data and describing places on the earth’s surface.

Goal: A broad statement of a desired outcome. Goals are usually 

not quantifiable and may not have established timeframes for 

achievement.
174 Worland Approved RMP

Glossary September 2015

Goal Interference: Recreationist pursuing desired beneficial outcomes is not able to

realize the positive aspects of a visit because of the behavior of 

someone else.

Graze: (1) The consumption of standing forage by livestock or wildlife. (2) 

To put livestock to feed on standing forage.

Grazing: To graze.

Grazing License or 

Permit:

Official written permission to graze a specific number, kind, and 

class of livestock for a specified period on a defined allotment or 

management area.

Grazing Management: The manipulation of grazing and browsing animals to accomplish a 

desired result.

Grazing Management 

Plan:

A program of action designed to secure the best practicable use of 

the forage resource with grazing or browsing animals. 

Grazing Period: The length of time that animals are allowed to graze on a specific

area.

Grazing Permit: A document that authorizes grazing use of the public lands under 

Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act. A grazing permit specifies 

terms and conditions under which permittees use lands for grazing 

during the term of the permit. Terms and conditions include the 

area authorized for grazing use, the number of livestock, period of 

use, and amount of use in AUMs and others. 

Grazing Relinquishment:

The voluntary and permanent surrender by an existing permittee or 

lessee (with concurrence of any base property lienholder(s)) of their 

priority (preference) to use a livestock forage allocation on public 

land as well as their permission to use this forage. Relinquishments 

do not require the consent or approval by BLM. The BLM’s receipt 

of a relinquishment is not a decision to close areas to livestock 

grazing.

Grazing Season: (1) On public lands, and established period for which grazing 

permits are issued. May be established on private land in a grazing 

management plan. (2) The time interval when animals are allowed 

to utilize a certain area.

Grazing System: A specialization of grazing management which defines the periods 

of grazing and non‐grazing.

Greenhouse Gas (GHG): The gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural

and anthropogenic, that absorb and emit radiation at specific 

wavelengths within the spectrum of infrared radiation emitted by 

the Earth’s surface, the atmosphere, and clouds. This property 

causes the greenhouse effect. Water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide 

(CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3) are the 

primary greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. 
Worland Approved RMP 175

September 2015 Glossary

Growing Season: In temperate climates, that portion of the year when temperature 

and moisture permit plant growth. 

Guidelines: Actions or management practices that may be used to achieve

desired outcomes, sometimes expressed as best management 

practices. Guidelines may be identified during the land use planning 

process, but they are not considered a land use plan decision unless 

the plan specifies that they are mandatory.

Habitat: The natural abode of a plant or animal, including all biotic, climatic, 

and edaphic factors affecting life.

Habitat Management 

Area (HMA):

An area containing a specific habitat type(s) that is managed for the 

maintenance or recovery of a particular species.

Habitat Management 

Plan (HMP):

A written and approved activity plan for a geographical area of 

public lands that identifies wildlife habitat management actions to 

be implemented in achieving specific objectives related to RMP 

planning document decisions. 

Hazard Fuels: A fuel complex defined by kind, arrangement, volume, condition, 

and location that presents a threat of ignition and resistance to 

control. 

Hazardous Material: A substance or combination of substances that, because of quantity, 

concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, 

may either: (1) cause or significantly contribute to an increase in 

mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating, 

illness, or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to 

human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, 

transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed. 

Heavy Equipment Use: This phrase is used in fire management and is relative to limiting

fire suppression tactics. In this context it refers to not using dozers, 

skidders, or graders in areas where important resource values are 

in need of protection. Fire engines and water tenders used during 

suppression activities would be allowed.

High Potential Historic 

Site:

Historic sites related to the route or sites in close proximity thereto 

which provide opportunity to interpret the historic significance 

of the trail during the period of its major use. The criteria for 

consideration of sites as high potential historic sites includehistoric 

significance, presence of visible historic remnants, scenic quality, 

and relative freedom from intrusion. High potential historic sites 

are assumed to contain remnants, artifacts, and other properties 

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, pending 

evaluation. Under the National Trails System Act, high potential 

historic sites located on federal land are referred to as Federal 

Protection Components. 
176 Worland Approved RMP

Glossary September 2015

High Potential Route 

Segment:

Segments of a trail which would afford a high-quality recreation 

experience in a portion of the route having greater than average 

scenic values or affording an opportunity to vicariously share 

the experience of the original users of a historic route. National 

Historic Trail high potential route segments are assumed to contain 

remnants, artifacts, and other properties eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places, pending evaluation. Under the National 

Trails System Act, high potential route segments located on federal 

land are referred to as Federal Protection Components. 

Historic: Referring to the time after written records or after the Europeans 

first came to and wrote about the people and events inAmerica.

Historic Trails: Generally those routes utilized during the initial exploration and

settlement of an area. These routes are known from maps and other 

documents and may also retain physical integrity on the ground (see 

also National Historic Trails).

History: The study of past events and times through use of written and 

recorded sources. In some cases, oral sources may also be available.

I Category (Improve): See Allotment Categorization. 

Important Cultural 

Resources:

Important Cultural 

Sites:

All historic properties allocated to Conservation for Future, 

Scientific, and Traditional use categories. Additionally, on 

a case-by-case basis some historic properties assigned to

Experimental, and Public use categories may be determined to be 

included in this class of resource. 

See Important Cultural Resources. 

Indicator: A component of a system whose characteristics (for example, 

presence, absence, quantity, and distribution) can be observed, 

measured, or monitored based on sound scientific principles. An 

indicator can be evaluated at a site- or species-specific level.

Monitoring of an indicator must be able to show change within 

timeframes acceptable to management and to show how the health 

of the ecosystem is changing in response to specific management 

actions. Selection of the appropriate indicators to be observed, 

measured, or monitored in a particular allotment is a critical 

aspect of early communication among the interests involved 

on-the-ground. The most useful indicators are those for which 

change or trend can be easily quantified and for which agreement as 

to the significance of the indicator is broad based. 

Infestation: The inhabitation of a host by large numbers of pests, such as bark

beetles on pine trees. Invasion by large numbers of parasites or 

pests.

Infiltration: The downward entry of water into the soil or other material.
Worland Approved RMP 177

September 2015 Glossary

Integrated Weed 

Management: 

The use of all appropriate weed control measures, including fire, as 

well as mechanical, chemical, biological, and cultural techniques, 

in an organized and coordinated manner on a site-specific basis.

Interested Public: An individual, group, or organization that has: (1)(i) Submitted

a written request to BLM to be provided an opportunity to be 

involved in the decision making process as to a specific allotment, 

and (ii) Followed up that request by submitting written comment as 

to management of a specific allotment, or otherwise participating in 

the decision making process as to a specific allotment, if BLM has 

provided them an opportunity for comment or other participation; or 

(2) Submitted written comments to the authorized officer regarding 

the management of livestock grazing on a specific allotment (CFR 

4100.0-5).

Interim Management 

Policy (IMP):

The policy and guidelines under which the BLM manages lands 

under wilderness review (known as Wilderness Study Areas). This 

policy is referred to as the “interim” management policy because it 

applies to specific areas of the public lands for a limited amount of 

time, depending upon various stages and schedules of the review 

process (BLM Manual 8550). 

Intermittent Stream: A stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it receives

water from springs or from some surface source such as melting 

snow in mountainous areas. Confusion over the distinction between 

intermittent and ephemeral streams may be minimized by applying 

Meinzer’s suggestion that the term “intermittent” be arbitrarily 

restricted to streams that flow continuously for periods of at least 

30 days (Prichard et al. 1998). 

Invasive Species: According to Executive Order 13112, an invasive species is an

alien species whose introduction causes or is likely to cause 

economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. The 

executive summary of the National Invasive Species Management 

Plan further clarifies and defines an invasive species as a species 

that is nonnative to the ecosystem under consideration and whose 

introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental 

harm or harm to human health. 

Inventory: Gathering of baseline information (including quantitative data, 

cultural knowledge, and qualitative observations) about condition 

of resources. Examples of inventory are Ecological Site Inventory, 

and Population Counts of Threatened or Endangered Species (BLM 

2001). 

Karst Region: Karst topography is a landscape shaped by the dissolution of a 

layer or layers of soluble bedrock, usually carbonate rock such as 

limestone or dolomite. Due to subterranean drainage, there may 

be very limited surface water, even to the absence of all rivers 

and lakes. Many karst regions display distinctive surface features, 

with sinkholes or dolines being the most common. However,
178 Worland Approved RMP

Glossary September 2015

Kinds of Livestock 

(animal):

distinctive karst surface features may be completely absent where 

the soluble rock is mantled, such as by glacial debris, or confined 

by a superimposed non-soluble rock strata. Some karst regions 

include thousands of caves, even though evidence of caves that are 

big enough for human exploration is not a required characteristic 

of karst.

An animal species or species group such as sheep, cattle, goats, 

deer, horses, elk, antelope, etc. 

Land: The total natural and cultural environment within which production 

takes place; a broader term than soil. In addition to soil, its 

attributes include other physical conditions, such as mineral 

deposits, climate, and water supply; location in relation to centers 

of commerce, populations, and other land; the size of the individual 

tracts or holdings; and existing plant cover, works of improvement, 

and the like.

Land Health: Degree to which the integrity of the soil and the ecological

processes of ecosystems are sustained (BLM 2001).

Landscape Character: The arrangement of a particular landscape as formed by the

variety and intensity of the landscape features and the four basic 

elements of form, line, color, and texture. These factors give the 

area a distinctive quality that distinguishes it from its immediate 

surroundings. 

Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics:

Lands that have been inventoried and found to contain wilderness 

characteristics as defined in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 

1964. 

Land Tenure: To improve the manageability of BLM lands and improve their

usefulness to the public, the BLM has numerous authorities for 

“repositioning” lands into a more consolidated pattern, disposing 

of lands, and entering into cooperative management agreements. 

These land-pattern improvements are completed primarily through 

the use of land exchanges, but also through land sales, jurisdictional 

transfers to other agencies, and the use of cooperative management 

agreements and leases. These ownership or jurisdictional changes 

are referred to as “Land Tenure Adjustments.” 

Leasable Minerals: Those minerals or materials subject to lease by the federal

government under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. They include 

coal, phosphate, asphalt, sulphur, potassium, and sodiumminerals, 

oil and gas, as well as geothermal resources.

Lease: (1) A legal document that conveys to an operator the right to drill 

for oil and gas; (2) the tract of land, on which a lease has been 

obtained, where producing wells and production equipment are 

located. Contractual instruments granting rights to use specific 

managed public lands, with certain conditions, for specific purposes 
Worland Approved RMP 179

September 2015 Glossary

such as livestock grazing, timber harvesting, and energy or mineral 

development. 

Lease Notice or 

Information Notice: 

Provides more detailed information concerning limitations that 

already exist in law, lease terms, regulations, or operational orders. 

A Lease Notice also addresses special items the lessee should 

consider when planning operations, but does not impose new or 

additional restrictions (Uniform Format for Oil and Gas Lease 

Stipulations, March 1989. Rocky Mountain Regional Coordinating 

Committee). An information notice has no legal consequences, 

except to give notice of existing requirements, and may be 

attached to a lease by the authorized officer at the time of lease 

issuance to convey certain operational, procedural or administrative 

requirements relative to lease management within the terms and 

conditions of the standard lease form. Information notices shall not 

be a basis for denial of lease operations (43 CFR 3101.1-3).

Lease Stipulation: A provision that modifies standard lease rights and is attached to

and made a part of the lease (Uniform Format for Oil and Gas Lease 

Stipulations, March 1989. Rocky Mountain Regional Coordinating 

Committee). The authorized officer may require stipulations as 

conditions of lease issuance. “Stipulations shall become part of the 

lease and shall supersede inconsistent provisions of the standard 

lease form. Any party submitting a bid... shall be deemed to have 

agreed to stipulations applicable to the specific parcel...” (43 CFR 

3101.1-3).

Lek: A traditional courtship display area attended by male Greater 

Sage-Grouse in or adjacent to sagebrush-dominated habitat. A lek 

is designated based on observations of two or more male Greater 

Sage-Grouse engaged in courtship displays. Before adding the 

suspected lek to the database, it must be confirmed by an additional 

observation made during the appropriate time of day, during the 

strutting season. Sign of strutting activity (tracks, droppings, 

feathers) can also be used to confirm a suspected lek. Sub-dominant 

males may display on itinerant (temporary) strutting areas during 

population peaks. Such areas usually fail to become established 

leks. Therefore, a site where small numbers of males (less than five) 

are observed strutting should be confirmed active for two years 

before adding the site to the lek database.

Lek Annual Status: Lek status is assessed annually based on the following definitions

(BLM 2012): 

● Active – Any lek that has been attended by male Greater 

Sage-Grouse during the strutting season.

● Inactive – Any lek where sufficient data suggests that there was 

no strutting activity throughout a strutting season.
180 Worland Approved RMP

Glossary September 2015

● Unknown – Leks for which status as active or inactive has not 

been documented during the course of a strutting season. Except 

for those leks not scheduled for checks in a particular year, use of 

this status should be rare.

Lek Count: A census technique that documents the actual number of male

Greater Sage-Grouse observed attending a lek complex (BLM 

2012). 

Lek Management 

Status:

Based on its annual status, a lek is assigned to one of the following 

categories for management purposes (BLM 2012): 

● Occupied lek – A lek that has been active during at least 

one strutting season within the prior 10 years. Occupied leks 

are protected through prescribed management actions during 

surface-disturbing activities.

● Unoccupied lek – There are two types of unoccupied leks, 

“destroyed” and “abandoned.” Unoccupied leks are not protected 

during surface-disturbing activities.

○ Destroyed lek – A formerly active lek site and surrounding 

sagebrush habitat that has been destroyed and is no longer 

suitable for Greater Sage-Grouse breeding. A lek site that has 

been strip-mined, paved, converted to cropland or undergone 

other long-term habitat type conversion is considered 

destroyed. Destroyed leks are not monitored unless the site has 

been reclaimed to suitable Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.

○ Abandoned lek – A lek in otherwise suitable habitat that 

has not been active during a period of 10 consecutive years. 

To be designated abandoned, a lek must be “inactive” (see 

Lek Annual Status) in at least four non-consecutive strutting 

seasons spanning the 10 years. The site of an “abandoned” lek 

should be surveyed at least once every 10 years to determine 

whether it has been re-occupied by Greater Sage-Grouse. 

○ Undetermined lek – Any lek that has not been documented 

active in the last 10 years, but survey information isinsufficient 

to designate the lek as unoccupied. Undetermined leks are 

not protected through prescribed management actions during 

surface-disturbing activities until sufficient documentation is 

obtained to confirm the lek is occupied. Use of this status 

should be rare (see Lek Annual Status).

Lek Perimeter: The outer perimeter of a lek and any associated small leks within

about 500 meters. Perimeters may vary over time as population 

levels or habitat and weather conditions change (BLM 2012). 

Lentic: Standing water riparian/wetland areas such as lakes, ponds, seeps, 

bogs, and meadows (University of Arizona No Date).
Worland Approved RMP 181

September 2015 Glossary

Limited Area: An area restricted, at certain times, in certain areas, and/or to

certain vehicle use. These restrictions may be of any type, but 

can generally be accommodated within the following types of 

categories: number of vehicles, type of vehicles, time of season of 

vehicle use, permitted or licensed use only, use on existing roads 

and trails, use on designated roads and trails, and other restrictions.

Livestock: Domestic animals.

Livestock Management: Application of technical principles and business methods to

livestock production. 

Locatable Minerals: Minerals subject to exploration, development, and disposal by

staking mining claims as authorized by the Mining Law of 1872, as 

amended. This includes deposits of metallic minerals such as gold, 

silver, and other uncommon materials not subject to lease or sale.

Lotic: Running water riparian/wetland areas such as rivers, streams, and 

springs (University of Arizona No Date).

Major Constraints (Oil 

and Gas): 

See Fluid Mineral Leasing Categories. 

Management Plan: A program of action designed to reach a given set of objectives.

Management Zone 

(Greater Sage-Grouse):

Biologically based management areas determined using Greater 

Sage-Grouse populations and sub-populations identified within 

distinct floristic provinces. Management Zones reflect ecological 

and biological issues and similarities, not political boundaries.

In addition, the vegetation communities found in the floristic 

provinces, as well as the management challenges within a given 

Management Zone, are similar and Greater Sage-Grouse and their 

habitats are likely responding similarly to environmental factors 

and management actions (Stiver et al. 2006). 

M Category (Maintain): See Allotment Categorization. 

Measureable Targeted 

Outcomes:

A quantitative scale used to measure explicitly stated targeted 

experience and benefit outcomes as prescribed in each Recreation 

Management Area (SRMA, RMZ, separate ERMA) through 

monitoring methods such as on site surveys, focus groups, or other 

means appropriate and as funding allows to sample and collect data. 

Measurable targeted outcomes range on a probability scale where 

1=not at all, 2=somewhat, 3=neutral, 4=moderate, and 5=total 

realization.

Mechanized Use: Use of public lands by human-powered vehicles (such as mountain 

bicycles).

Mesic: Related to conditions of moderate moisture or water supply. Used 

to describe organisms occupying moist habitats.
182 Worland Approved RMP

Glossary September 2015

Mineral Materials 

(Salables):

Materials such as common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, 

pumicite, and clay that are not obtainable under the mining or 

leasing laws, but can be acquired under the Mineral Materials Act 

of 1947, as amended. 

Mineral Withdrawal: A formal order that withholds federal lands and minerals from entry

under the Mining Law of 1872, as amended, and closes the area to 

mineral location (i.e., staking mining claims) and development. 

Minimization 

Mitigation: 

Minimum Impact 

Suppression Techniques:

Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the 

action and its implementation (40 CFR 1508.20 [b]). 

The application of strategy and tactics that effectively meet 

suppression and resource objectives with the least environmental, 

cultural, and social impacts.

Mining Claim: A parcel of land that a miner takes and holds for mining purposes, 

having acquired the right of possession by complying with the 

Mining Law and local laws and rules. A mining claim may contain 

as many adjoining locations as the locator may make or buy. There 

are four categories of mining claims: lode, placer, mill site, and 

tunnel site.

Mitigation: ● Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or 

parts of an action. 

● Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the 

action and its implementation.

● Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring 

the affected environment. 

● Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation 

and maintenance operations during the life of the action.

● Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute 

resources or environments. 

Mitigation Measures: Methods or procedures designed to reduce or lessen the adverse

impacts caused by management activities.

Moderate (recreation 

outcomes):

Moderate Constraints 

(Oil and Gas):

See Measurable Targeted Outcomes. 

See Fluid Mineral Leasing Categories. 

Monitoring: The orderly collection, analysis, and interpretation of resource data

to evaluate progress toward meeting management objectives.

National Historic Trails: A protected area designation containing historic trails and

surrounding areas authorized under the National Trails System 

Act of 1968. National Historic Trails may only be designated by 
Worland Approved RMP 183

September 2015 Glossary

an act of Congress.
184 Worland Approved RMP

Glossary September 2015

National Register of 

Historic Places:

The official list of the Nation's historic places worthy of 

preservation. Properties listed or eligible for listing are associated: 

with events, activities, or developments that were important in 

the past; with the lives of people who were important in the 

past; with significant architectural history, landscape history, or 

engineering achievements; or have already, or have the potential, 

to yield important information through investigation about our 

past. These may include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and 

objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, and association as appropriate.

National Trail 

Management Corridor:

Allocation established through the land use planning process, 

pursuant to Section 202 of Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act and Section 7(a)(2) of the National Trails System Act (“rightsof-way”) for a public land area of sufficient width within which to 

encompass National Trail resources, qualities, values, and 

associated settings and the primary use or uses that are present or 

to be restored. 

National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System:

A system of nationally designated rivers and their immediate 

environments that have outstanding scenic, recreational, geologic, 

fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, and other similar values and 

are preserved in a free-flowing condition. The system consists of 

three types of streams:

1. Recreation – rivers or sections of rivers that are readily 

accessible by road or railroad and that may have some 

development along their shorelines and may have undergone 

some impoundments or diversion in the past;

2. Scenic – rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments 

with shorelines or watersheds still largely undeveloped but 

accessible in places by roads; and

3. Wild – rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments and 

generally inaccessible except by trails, with watersheds or 

shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. 

Native American: The people living in North and South America prior to European

exploration. Many groups of people today are Native Americans 

and have ancestors who lived on these continents for thousands 

of years before Columbus came. They are also called American 

Indian, First American, Alaska Native, and Native People. 

Native Species: A species that is a part of the original fauna or flora of a given area

in question. 

Natural Fire Regime: The general classification of the role fire would play across a 

landscape in the absence of modern human mechanical intervention, 

but including the influence of aboriginal burning (Agee 1993, 

Brown 1995). 
Worland Approved RMP 185

September 2015 Glossary

Nature and Purposes: The term used to describe the character, characteristics, and

congressional intent for a designated National Trail, including the 

resources, qualities, values, and associated settings of the areas 

through which such trails may pass; the primary use or uses of 

a National Trail; and activities promoting the preservation of, 

public access to, travel within, and enjoyment and appreciation 

of National Trails.

Net Conservation Gain: The actual benefit or gain above baseline conditions. 

Nonconsumptive Use: A use that does not reduce supply. For example, wildlife viewing 

does not reduce supply of wildlife as opposed to big game hunting, 

which reduces the supply of big game. 

Nonmarket Values: These values are not revealed through market transactions that

establish market prices. For example, clean air, open space, 

preservation of critical wildlife habitat, etc., are not traded in the 

market place and therefore there is no market price for them.

Nonetheless, there is a value for these resources that can be 

measured based on how much people would be willing to pay for 

them.

No Surface Occupancy 

(NSO):

Used to prohibit the physical presence of oil and gas operations and 

associated facilities on the surface of Public Lands in a specified 

area to protect sensitive surface resource values. The NSO 

provision is reserved for use in fluid mineral land use planning and 

allocation decisions and lease stipulations. Other terms, such as 

restricted area, avoidance area, exclusion area, etc., are used with 

non-fluid mineral functions.

Noxious Weeds: Weeds, seeds, or other plant parts that are considered detrimental,

destructive, injurious, or poisonous, either by virtue of their direct 

effect or as carriers of diseases or parasites that exist within this 

state, and are on the designated list.

Objective: A description of a desired condition for a resource. Objectives can

be quantified and measured and, where possible, have established 

timeframes for achievement.

Occupied Lek: See Lek Management Status. 

Off‐Highway Vehicle 

(OHV):

Any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or 

immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding (1) 

any nonamphibious registered motorboat; (2) any military, fire, 

emergency, or law enforcement vehicle being used for emergency 

purposes; (3) any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the 

authorized officer, or otherwise officially approved; (4) vehicles in 

official use; and (5) any combat or combat support vehicle when 

used in times of national defense emergencies.
186 Worland Approved RMP

Glossary September 2015

Off-Highway Vehicle 

(OHV) Management 

Designations: 

All public lands are required to have off-highway vehicle area 

designations. Areas must be classified as open, limited, or closed to 

motorized travel activities. Travel by over-snow vehicles is subject 

to the same requirements and limitations as all other vehicles unless 

specifically addressed otherwise in activity plans.

● Closed: Vehicle travel is prohibited in the area. Access by 

means other than motorized vehicle is usually permitted. This 

designation is used if closure to all vehicular use is necessary to 

protect resources, to ensure visitor safety, or to reduce conflicts. 

Use of vehicles in closed areas may be allowed for certain 

reasons; however, such use shall be made only with the approval 

of the authorized officer.

● Open: All types of vehicle use is permitted at all timesanywhere 

in the area. However, motor vehicles may not be operated in a 

manner causing or likely to cause significant, undue damage to or 

disturbance of the soil, wildlife, wildlife habitat, improvements, 

cultural or vegetative resources or other authorized uses of the 

public lands (see 43 CFR 8340.0-5) (Manual 1626 Travel and 

Transportation Management). Accordingly, in “Open” areas, 

driving off-road to perform necessary tasks, for recreational 

activities, or any other purpose, is allowed. The experience in 

the western United States suggests that “Open” designations 

encourage route proliferation and unlimited cross-country 

driving and is causing degradation of the lands and resources. It 

is the policy of the BLM in Wyoming to limit the use of “Open” 

designations to areas suitable for unlimited off-road driving such 

as sand dune areas that are essentially devoid of vegetation.

● Limited: (a) Vehicle travel is permitted only on roads and 

vehicle routes which were in existence prior to the date of 

publication in the FR. Vehicle travel off of existing vehicle routes 

is permitted only to accomplish necessary tasks and only if such 

travel does not result in resource damage. Random travel from 

existing vehicle routes is not allowed. Creation of new routes or 

extensions and (or) widening of existing routes are not allowed 

without prior written agency approval. 

(b) Vehicle travel is permitted only on roads and vehicle routes 

designated by the BLM. Vehicle travel off of designated vehicle 

routes is permitted only to accomplish necessary tasks and only 

if such travel does not result in resource damage. Random 

travel from designated vehicle routes is not allowed. In areas 

where final designation has not been completed, vehicle travelis 

limited to existing roads and vehicle routes as described above. 

Designations may include, but are not limited to, the following: 

1. Vehicle route is open to vehicular travel.

2. Vehicle route is closed to vehicular travel.
Worland Approved RMP 187

September 2015 Glossary

Oil and Gas 

Management Area:

3. Vehicle travel is limited by number or type of vehicle such 

as:

○ Vehicle route limited to four‐wheel drive vehicles only.

○ Vehicle route limited to motorbikes only.

4. Vehicle route limited to all terrain vehicles only.

5. Area is closed to over‐snow vehicles.

6. Vehicle travel is limited to licensed or permitted use.

7. Vehicle travel is limited to time or season of use.

Where specialized restrictions are necessary to meet resource 

management objectives, other limitations also may be developed. 

The BLM may place other limitations, as necessary, to protect 

other resources, particularly in areas that motorized OHV 

enthusiasts use intensely or where they participate in competitive 

or group events. 

Intensively developed existing fields to be managed primarily for 

oil and gas exploration and development. 

Old-Growth Forest: Ecosystem distinguished by old trees and related structural features.

Old growth encompasses the later stages of stand development that 

typically differ from earlier stages in several ways, including tree 

size, accumulation of large dead woody material, number of canopy 

layers, species composition, and ecosystem function. Old-growth 

forest is typically distinguished by the following:

● Large-sized trees of specific species

● Wide variation in age classes and stocking levels

● Accumulations of large-sized dead standing and fallen trees

● Decadence in the form of broken or deformed tops and boles 

● Multiple canopy layers

● Canopy interspaces and understory patchiness.

Open: Generally denotes that an area is available for a particular use or 

uses. Refer to specific program definitions found in law, regulations, 

or policy guidance for application to individual programs. 

Open (Oil and Gas): See Fluid Mineral Leasing Categories. 

Operator: Any person who has taken formal responsibility for the operations 

conducted on the leased lands. 

Outstandingly 

Remarkable Values:

Values among those listed in Section 1(b) of the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act: “scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, 

historical, cultural, or other similar values.” Other values that may 

be considered include, but are not limited to, ecological, biological 

or botanical, paleontological, hydrological, traditional cultural uses, 

water quality, and scientific values. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

does not further define outstandingly remarkable values. Agency 

resource professionals develop and interpret criteria in evaluating 

river values (unique, rare, or exemplary) based on professional 
188 Worland Approved RMP

Glossary September 2015

judgment on a regional, physiographic, or geographic comparative 

basis.

Over-snow Vehicle: A motor vehicle that is designed for use over snow and that runs on 

a track or tracks and/or a ski or skis, while in use over snow. 

Paleocene Eocene 

Thermal Maximum 

(PETM):

The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) is one of 

the most intense and abrupt intervals of global warming in the 

geological record. It occurred around 56 million years ago, 

at the boundary between the Paleocene and Eocene epochs 

and lasted about 200,000 years. This warming has been 

linked to a similarly rapid increase in the concentration of 

greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, which acted to trap 

heat and drive up global temperatures by more than 5 degrees 

Celsius in just a few thousand years. The fossil record gives 

us the means of understanding how life was affected by the 

PETM, and so provides an excellent opportunity to study the 

relationships between evolution, extinction, migration and climate 

change. See http://www.palaeontologyonline.com/articles/2011/

the-paleocene-eocene-thermal-maximum/. 

Paleoclimate Change: Changing climatic conditions during past geologic ages.

Paleontological Locality: A geographic point or area where a fossil or associated fossils are

found in a related geological context. A paleontological locality 

is confined to a discrete stratigraphic layer, structural feature, or 

physiographic area.

Paleontological 

Resources Protection 

Stipulations:

● Collecting: The project proponent/operator is responsible for 

informing all persons associated with this project including 

employees, contractors, and subcontractors under their direction 

that they shall be subject to prosecution for damaging, altering, 

excavating, or removing any vertebrate fossils or other 

scientifically significant paleontological resources from the 

project area. Collection of vertebrate fossils (bones, teeth, turtle 

shells) or other scientifically significant paleontological resources 

is prohibited without a permit. Unlawful removal, damage, or 

vandalism of paleontological resources will be prosecuted by 

federal law enforcement personnel. 

● Discovery: If vertebrate or scientifically significant 

paleontological resources are discovered on BLM-administered 

land during operations, the operator shall suspend operations 

that could disturb the materials, and immediately contact the 

BLM Worland Field Manager. The BLM will arrange for 

evaluation of the find by an appropriate BLM paleontologist, 

Paleontological Coordinator, or Paleontological Use Permittee 

within an agreed to timeframe. The BLM will determine the need 

for any mitigation actions that may be necessary. Any mitigation 

would be developed in consultation with the operator, who would 

be responsible for the cost of site evaluation and mitigation of 
Worland Approved RMP 189

September 2015 Glossary

project effects to the paleontological resources. Depending on 

site evaluation, operations within 100 feet of a paleontological 

discovery will not be resumed until written authorization to 

proceed is issued by the Field Manager. 

● Avoidance: All vertebrate or scientifically significant 

paleontological resources found as a result of the project/action 

will be avoided during operations. Avoidance in this case means 

“no action or disturbance within a distance of at least 100 feet of 

the outer edge of the paleontological locality.”

Paleontology: The study of ancient life, particularly the fossil record. 

Pasture: (1) A grazing area enclosed and separated from other areas by 

fencing or other barriers; the management unit for grazing land. 

(2) Forage plants used as food for grazing animals. (3) Any area 

devoted to the production of forage, native or introduced, and 

harvested by grazing. (4) A group of subunits grazed within a 

rotational grazing system.

Perennial Stream: A stream that flows continuously. Perennial streams generally are

associated with a water table in the localities through which they 

flow (Prichard et al. 1998). 

Permit: Contractual instruments granting rights to use specific managed 

public lands, with certain conditions, for specific purposes such 

as livestock grazing, timber harvesting, paleontology, and energy 

or mineral development. 

Permitted Use: (1) The forage allocated by, or under the guidance of, an applicable 

land use plan for livestock grazing in an allotment under a permit 

or lease, expressed in AUMs. (2) A paleontologist must have a 

valid paleontological resource use permit before collecting or 

disturbing fossil resources on BLM-administered lands. Permitted 

uses for paleontology include activities related to paleontological 

surveys, excavation and consulting. 

Permittee: One who holds a permit to graze livestock on state, federal, or 

certain privately-owned lands. 

Pest: With the exception of vascular plants classified as invasive 

nonnative plant species, a pest can be any biological life form that 

poses a threat to human or ecological health and welfare. For the 

purposes of this planning effort, an “animal pest” is any vertebrate 

or invertebrate animal subject to control by Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS). APHIS is currently the BLM’s 

authorized agent for controlling “animal pests.” For this reason, 

“animal pests” is considered a subset of pest. An annoying or 

troublesome animal or thing; nuisance. 

Petroglyph: Pictures created on rock faces by removing a portion of the rock by

pecking, abrading, incising, or scratching. 
190 Worland Approved RMP

Glossary September 2015

Planning Area: A geographic area for which land use and resource management

plans are developed and maintained. 

Play Area (OHV): An area where on- or off-route OHV use is nearly unrestricted.

Often attracting many riders, such areas may be on dunes, in 

sand and gravel pits, and in other areas that present challenges to 

OHV users. Structured recreation management is applied to these 

areas so as to appropriately manage for health and safety, resource 

protection, and use and user conflicts. Play areas are designated 

on OHV “Open” Areas. See Off-Highway Vehicle Management 

Designations. 

Potential Fossil Yield 

Classification (PFYC):

Occurrences of paleontological resources are closely tied to the 

geologic units that contain them. The probability for finding 

paleontological resources can be broadly predicted from the 

geologic units present at or near the surface. Using the PFYC 

system, geologic units are classified based on the relative abundance 

of vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant 

fossils, with a higher class number indicating a higher potential.

The classification uses a ranking of 1 through 5, with Class 5 

assigned to units with a very high potential for paleontological 

resources. The classifications are described below. 

● Class 1 – Very Low. Igneous or metamorphic geologic units, 

or other units not likely to contain recognizable fossil remains. 

Management concern is very low or negligible. Assessment or 

mitigation is usually unnecessary except in very rare or isolated 

occurrence.

● Class 2 – Low. Sedimentary geologic units that are not likely to 

contain vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate 

and pant fossils. Management concern for paleontological 

resources is generally low. Assessment or mitigation is usually 

unnecessary except in rare or isolated occurrences.

● Class 3 – Moderate or Unknown. Fossiliferous sedimentary 

geologic units where fossil content varies in significance, 

abundance, and predictable occurrence; or sedimentary units of 

unknown fossil potential. Management concern may extend 

across the entire range of management. PFYC 3 (Moderate) 

units may require field surveys for determination of appropriate 

course of actions. Mitigation may be necessary before and/or 

during these actions. Avoidance or non-site monitoring may be 

necessary during project activities. Justification required for 

survey decisions on PFYC 3 (Moderate) formations (i.e., whether 

a survey is required or not). PFYC 3 (Unknown) units will 

require pre-disturbance field surveys prior to surface-disturbing 

activities or land tenure adjustments. Mitigation may be 

necessary before and/or during these actions. Avoidance or 

non-site monitoring may be necessary during project activities.

● Class 4 – High. Geologic units containing a high occurrence 

of vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or 
Worland Approved RMP 191

September 2015 Glossary

Potential Natural 

Community (PNC):

plant fossils, but may vary in occurrences and predictability. 

Surface-disturbing activities may adversely affect paleontological 

resources in many cases. Management concern for 

paleontological resources is high, depending on the proposed 

action. Pre-disturbance field surveys are usually necessary

prior to surface-disturbing activities or land tenure adjustments. 

Mitigation will often be necessary before and/or during these 

actions. Avoidance or non-site monitoring may often be 

necessary during project activities.

● Class 5 – Very High. Highly fossiliferous geologic units 

that consistently and predictably produce vertebrate fossils 

or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils.

Paleontological resources are highly susceptible to adverse 

impacts from surface-disturbing activities. Management concern 

for paleontological resources is very high. Pre-disturbance 

field surveys are usually necessary prior to surface-disturbing 

activities or land tenure adjustments. Mitigation will often be 

necessary before and/or during these actions. Avoidance or 

non-site monitoring may often be necessary during project 

activities. Special management designations may be appropriate 

for protection or interpretation. These units are often the focus 

of illegal collecting activities.

The biotic community that would become established if all 

successional sequences were completed without interference by 

humans under the present environmental conditions. Natural 

disturbances are inherent in development. PNCs can include 

naturalized nonnative species. 

Prairie Dog “Complex”: Defined as a cluster of two or more prairie dog towns within 3 

kilometers of each other (Clark and Stromberg 1987; Luce 2003) 

and bounded by either natural or artificial barriers (Whicker 

and Detling 1998), which effectively isolate one cluster of 

colonies from interacting/interchanging with another. Prairie 

dogs may commonly move among colonies of a cluster, and 

thereby foster reproductive/genetic viability, but exhibit little 

emigration/immigration between clusters. A cluster may include 

some currently unoccupied, though physically suitable (e.g., 

vegetation, soils, topography), land immediately adjacent to 

occupied colonies that support other prairie dog-associated

(ecosystem function), obligate or facultative species (e.g., swift fox, 

mountain plover, burrowing owl). 

Prehistory/Prehistoric: Information about past events prior to the recording of events

in writing. The period of prehistory differs around the world 

depending upon when written records became common in a region. 

Prescribed Burning: Controlled application of fire to wildland fuels in either their natural

or modified state under specified environmental conditions that 

allow the fire to be confined to a predetermined area and at the
192 Worland Approved RMP

Glossary September 2015

same time to produce the fire intensity and rate of spread required 

to attain planned resource management objectives. 

Prescribed Fire: Any fire intentionally ignited by managed under an approved plan

to meet specific objectives.

Produced Water: Groundwater removed to facilitate the extraction of minerals,such

as coal, oil, or gas. 

Proper Functioning 

Condition:

See Riparian. 

Proper Grazing: The practice of managing forage use by grazing animals at a 

sustainable level that maintains rangeland health. Proper grazing 

will maintain or increase plant cover, including residue, which acts 

to slow down or reduce runoff, increase water infiltration, and keep 

erosion and sedimentation at or above acceptable levels within the 

potential of ecological sites within a given geographic area (e.g., 

watershed, grazing allotment).

Public Land: Land or interest in land owned by the United States and

administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the BLM, 

except lands located on the Outer Continental Shelf, and land held 

for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos. 

Range: Any land supporting vegetation suitable for grazing including 

rangeland, grazable woodland, and shrubland. Modifies resources, 

products, activities, practices, and phenomena pertaining to 

rangeland.

Range Improvement 

Project:

A structural improvement requiring placement or construction to 

facilitate management or control distribution and movement of 

grazing or browsing animals. Such improvements may include, 

but are not limited to, fences, wells, troughs, reservoirs, water 

catchments, pipelines, and cattleguards. The project also may 

include a practice or treatment that improves rangeland condition 

and/or resource production for multiple use. Nonstructural types 

of projects may include, but are not limited to, seeding and plant 

control through chemical, mechanical, and biological means or 

prescribed burning. 

Rangeland: Land on which the native vegetation is predominantly grasses,

grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs suitable for grazing or browsing. 

This includes lands re-vegetated naturally or artificially when 

routine management of that vegetation is accomplished mainly 

through manipulation of grazing. Rangelands include natural 

grasslands, savannas, shrublands, most deserts, tundra, alpine 

communities, coastal marshes, and wet meadows.

Rangeland Health: The degree to which the integrity of the soil and ecological

processes of rangeland ecosystems are sustained.
Worland Approved RMP 193

September 2015 Glossary

Range Management: A distinct discipline founded on ecological principles and dealing

with the use of rangelands and range resources for a variety of 

purposes. These purposes include use as watersheds, wildlife 

habitat, grazing by livestock, recreation and aesthetics, as well as 

other associated uses.

Raptor: Bird of prey with sharp talons and a strongly curved beak, such as 

hawks, falcons, owls, vultures, and eagles.

Reasonable Access: For lands not involving Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs),

reasonable access means access determined on a case-by-case 

basis using site specific NEPA analysis. Access to private land 

across public land in a WSA is addressed in the Wilderness Interim 

Management Policy (IMP) for Lands under Wilderness Review.

Recreation and Public 

Purposes Act (R&PP):

Recreation Area 

Management Plan 

(RAMP):

The Recreation and Public Purposes Act (43 USC 869 et. seq.) 

authorizes the sale or lease of public lands for recreational or 

public purposes to state and local governments and to qualified 

nonprofit organizations. Examples of typical uses under the act 

are historic monument sites, campgrounds, schools, fire houses, 

law enforcement facilities, municipal facilities, landfills, hospitals, 

parks, and fairgrounds. 

An officially approved document for a specific area of public land 

that identifies the management actions to be implemented to achieve 

recreation related decisions made in a management framework of

a resource management plan. The Recreation Area Management 

Plan is the link between the allocation of land for recreation uses 

in the multiple-use planning process and the actions necessary to 

implement such allocations.

Recreation Experiences: Psychological outcomes realized either by recreation-tourism 

participants as a direct result of their on-site leisure engagements 

and recreation-tourism activity participation or by nonparticipating 

community residents as a result of their interaction with visitors 

and guests within their community or interaction with the BLM 

and other public and private recreation-tourism providers and their 

actions.

Recreation Management 

Areas:

Units within a planning area guiding recreation management on 

public lands having similar recreation related issues and concerns. 

There are two types of recreation management areas:

● Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA): Identified 

areas where recreation is planned for and actively managed on an 

interdisciplinary-basis in concert with other resources/resource 

programs. ERMAs offer recreation opportunities that facilitate 

visitors’ freedom to pursue a variety of outdoor recreation 

activities and attain a variety of outcomes. They include all lands 

that are not designated as an SRMA or closed to public use. 

Recreation management actions within an ERMA are limited to
194 Worland Approved RMP

Glossary September 2015

only those of a custodial nature and address visitor health and 

safety, resource protection and use and user conflicts.

● Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA): A public 

land unit identified in land use plans to direct recreation funding 

and personnel to fulfill commitments made to provide specific, 

structured recreation opportunities (i.e., activity, experience, 

and benefit opportunities). Both land use plan decisions and 

subsequent implementing actions for recreation in each SRMA

are geared to a strategically identified primary recreation-tourism 

market – destination, community, or undeveloped, as well as 

a corresponding and distinguishing recreation management 

strategy. Recreation setting conditions are prescribed as part 

of the land-use allocation decision. Subsequent implementing 

actions, as identified in the activity planning framework, are 

proactive and address management, marketing and visitor 

information, and monitoring and administration.

○ Recreation Management Zones (RMZ): Subunits within an 

SRMA managed for distinctly different recreation products. 

Recreation products are composed of recreation opportunities, 

the natural resource and community settings within which they 

occur, and the administrative and service environment created 

by all affecting recreation-tourism providers, within which 

recreation participation occurs.

Recreation Niche: The place or position within the strategically targeted

recreation-tourism market for each SRMA that is most suitable 

(i.e., capable of producing certain specific kinds of recreation 

opportunities) and appropriate (i.e., most responsive to identified 

visitor or resident customers), given available supply and current 

demand, for the production of specific recreation opportunities and 

the sustainable maintenance of accompanying natural resource or 

community setting character.

Recreation 

Opportunities:

Recreation Setting 

Characteristics (RSC):

Favorable circumstances enabling visitors’ engagement in a 

leisure activity to realize immediate psychological experiences 

and attain more lasting, value-added beneficial outcomes from 

the combination of recreation settings, activities, and experiences 

provided by the area. 

RSCs are derived from the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, a 

continuum divided into a spectrum of classes from primitive to 

urban recreation settings. The continuum of classes is characterized 

by three components; physical, social, and operational. 

Recreation Settings: The collective distinguishing attributes of landscapes that influence 

and sometimes actually determine what kinds of recreation 

opportunities are produced. 

Recreation-Tourism 

Market:

Recreation and tourism visitors and local residents who affect local 

governments and private sector businesses and the communities 
Worland Approved RMP 195

September 2015 Glossary

or other places where these customers originate (local, regional, 

national, or international). Based on analysis of supply and demand, 

land use plans strategically identify primary recreation-tourism 

markets for each special recreation management area—destination, 

community, or undeveloped. 

Rehabilitation Area: Change is needed or change may add acceptable visual variety to

an area. This class applies to areas where the naturalistic character 

has been disturbed to a point at which rehabilitation is needed to 

bring it back into character with the surrounding landscape. This 

class would apply to areas identified in the scenic evaluation where 

the quality class has been reduced because of unacceptable cultural 

modification. The contrast is inharmonious with the characteristic 

landscape. It may also be applied to areas that have the potential 

for enhancement; i.e., add acceptable visual variety to an area or 

site. It should be considered an interim or short-term classification 

until one of the other VRM class objectives can be reached through 

rehabilitation or enhancement. The desired VRM class should be 

identified.

Renewable Energy: Energy generated from renewable resources such as sunlight, wind, 

and biomass. 

Required Design 

Features (RDFs):

Reserve Common 

Allotment:

Required for certain activities in all priority Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat. RDFs establish the minimum specifications for certain 

activities to help mitigate adverse impacts. However, the 

applicability and overall effectiveness of each RDF cannot be fully 

assessed until the project level when the project location anddesign 

are known. Because of site-specific circumstances, some RDFs 

may not apply to some projects (e.g., a resource is not present on 

a given site) and/or may require slight variations (e.g., a larger or 

smaller protective area). All variations in RDFs would require that 

at least one of the following be demonstrated in the NEPA analysis 

associated with the project/activity:

● A specific RDF is documented to not be applicable to the 

site-specific conditions of the project/activity (e.g., due to 

site limitations or engineering considerations). Economic 

considerations, such as increased costs, do not necessarily require 

that an RDF be varied or rendered inapplicable;

● An alternative RDF, a state-implemented conservation measure, 

or plan-level protection is determined to provide equal or better 

protection for Greater Sage-Grouse or its habitat; or 

● A specific RDF will provide no additional protection toGreater 

Sage-Grouse or its habitat.

A reserve common allotment is an area which is designated in 

the land use plan as available for livestock grazing but reserved 

as an area available for use as an alternative to grazing in another 

allotment in order to facilitate rangeland restoration treatments and 

recovery from natural disturbances such as drought or wildfire. The 
196 Worland Approved RMP

Glossary September 2015

reserve common allotment would provide needed flexibility that 

would help the agency apply temporary rest from grazing where 

vegetation treatments and/or management would be most effective.

Residual Impacts: Impacts from an authorized land use that remain after applying 

avoidance and minimization mitigation; also referred to as 

unavoidable impacts. 

Resource Management 

Plan:

Resources, Qualities, 

and Values:

A land use plan as prescribed by the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act which establishes, for a given area of land, 

land-use allocations, coordination guidelines for multiple-use, 

objectives, and actions to be achieved. 

The significant scenic, historic, cultural, recreation, natural 

(including biological, geological, and scientific), and other 

landscape areas through which such trails may pass as identified in 

the National Trails System Act (see associated settings).

Resource Uses: Activities that utilize resources, such as minerals development, 

livestock grazing, forestry, OHV use, and recreation. 

Rest: Leaving an area ungrazed, thereby foregoing grazing of one forage 

crop. Normally rest implies absence of grazing for a full growing 

season or during a critical portion of plant development; i.e., seed 

production. 

Rest-Rotation: A grazing-management scheme in which rest periods, usually for a 

full growing season, for individual grazing units are incorporated 

into a grazing rotation. 

Right-of-Way (ROW) 

Corridor:

Public land where rights-of-way are concentrated and where the 

placement of future rights-of-way would be favored over lands that 

are currently unaffected by these disturbances. The designation

of right-of-way corridors would be used to facilitate the regional 

development of major rights-of-way, by linking right-of-way 

concentration areas between planning areas. Major rights-of-ways 

are defined as ROW authorizations for pipelines 24 inches in 

diameter or greater or high voltage transmission lines greater than 

115 kilovolts. 

Rights-of-Way (ROW): An authorization to use a specific piece of public land for a 

specific project, such as roads, pipelines, transmission lines, and 

communication sites. The grant authorizes rights and privileges for 

a specific use of the land for a specific period of time. 

Riparian: A form of wetland transition between permanently saturated 

wetlands and upland areas. These areas exhibit vegetation 

or physical characteristics reflective of permanent surface or 

subsurface water influence. Lands along, adjacent to, or contiguous 

with perennially and intermittently flowing rivers and streams, 

glacial potholes, and the shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable 
Worland Approved RMP 197

September 2015 Glossary

water levels are typical riparian areas (See BLM Manual 1737). 

Included are ephemeral streams that have vegetation dependent 

upon free water in the soil. All other ephemeral streams are 

excluded.

Functional-At-Risk: Riparian/wetland areas that are in functional 

condition, but an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes 

them susceptible to degradation. 

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC): A riparian or wetland area 

is considered to be in proper functioning condition when adequate 

vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to do the 

following: 

● Dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows, 

thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality 

● Filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development 

● Improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge

● Develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting 

action

● Develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide 

the habitats and the water depth, duration, and temperature 

necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses

● Support greater biodiversity 

Non-functional: Riparian or wetland areas that clearly are not 

providing adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris 

to dissipate stream energy associated with high flows and thus 

are not reducing erosion, improving water quality, and so on, as 

listed above. The absence of certain physical attributes, such as a 

floodplain where one should be, is an indicator of nonfunctioning 

conditions. 

Unknown: Riparian or wetland areas that the BLM lacks sufficient 

information on to make any form of determination. 

Rotation Grazing: A grazing scheme where animals are moved from one grazing unit 

in the same group of grazing units to another without regard to 

specific grazing rest periods or levels of plant defoliation. 

Salable Minerals: Common variety of minerals on public lands, such as sand and

gravel, used mainly for construction. Salable minerals are disposed 

of by sales to the public or free-use permits to government agencies 

or nonprofit organizations. 

Scenic Area: An area whose landscape character exhibits a high degree of variety

and harmony among the basic elements which results in a pleasant 

landscape to view.

Scenic Byways: A component of the national scenic byway system which focuses

on scenic corridors along major secondary and primary highways. 

A scenic byway has roadside corridors of special aesthetic, cultural,
198 Worland Approved RMP

Glossary September 2015

or historic value. An essential part of this road is its scenic corridor. 

The corridor may contain outstanding scenic vistas, unusual 

geologic or other elements – all providing enjoyment for the 

highway traveler (BLM 1993). 

Scenic Quality: The relative worth of a landscape from a visual perception point of 

view. Scenic quality is rated as Class A (high), Class B (medium), 

or Class C (low).

Seasonal Grazing: Grazing use throughout a specific season.

Section 106 of the 

National Historic 

Preservation Act:

“The head of any federal agency having direct or indirect 

jurisdiction over a proposed federal or federally assisted 

undertaking in any state and the head of any federal department or 

independent agency having authority to license any undertaking 

shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any federal funds 

on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the 

case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any 

district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or 

eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The head of any 

such federal agency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation established under Title II of this Act a reasonable 

opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking” (16

U.S.C. 47 df).

Sensitive Species: As designated by the BLM State Director, includes species that are

under status review, have small or declining populations, live in 

unique habitats, or require special management. BLM Manual 6840 

provides policy and guidance forspecialstatusspecies management. 

The BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species Policy and List are provided 

in a memorandum updated annually. Primary goals of the BLM 

Wyoming policy include maintaining vulnerable species and habitat 

components in functional BLM ecosystems and preventing a need 

for species listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Setting: The physical environment of a historic property and how the 

property evokes a sense of feeling and association with past events. 

Accordingly, setting refers to the character of the place in whichthe 

property played its historic role. It involves how, not just where, 

the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features 

and open space. These features and their relationships should be 

considered not only within the exact boundaries of the property, but 

also between the property and its surroundings. 

Significant 

Paleontological 

Resource:

Any paleontological resource that is considered to be of scientific 

interest, including most vertebrate fossil remains and traces, and 

certain rare or unusual invertebrate and plant fossils.

Site: A location, place. A term used by archeologists for places that 

prehistoric and historic people lived in or used. Sites are places 

where humans left things behind. 
Worland Approved RMP 199

September 2015 Glossary

Slope: A slant or incline of the land surface, measured in degrees from 

the horizontal, or in percent (defined as the number of feet or 

meters change in elevation per 100 of the same units of horizontal 

distance); may be further characterized by direction (exposure).

Special Recreation 

Management Area 

(SRMA):

See Recreation Management Areas. 

Special Status Species: Species proposed or candidates for listing, or officially listed as

threatened or endangered under the provisions of the endangered 

species act; those listed by a state in a category such as threatened 

or endangered implying potential endangerment or extinction; 

and those designated by the State Director as sensitive (BLM 

6840 Manual 2001). Special status species may include wildlife 

(including fish and invertebrate) or plant species.

Species: A taxon or rank species; in the hierarchy or biological classification, 

the category below genus. 

Species Diversity: The number, different kinds of, and relative abundances of species

present in a given area.

Split-Estate: Surface land and mineral estate of a given area under different

ownerships. Surface land and mineral estate of a given area under 

different ownerships. Frequently, the surface rights are in private 

ownership and the rights to development of the mineral resources 

are publically held and managed by the federal government. 

Spring: Flowing water originating from an underground source.

Stakeholder: Federal, state, or local governments and agencies, or other entities

where a Memorandum of Understanding, Cooperative Agreement, 

Interagency Agreement, or other such agreement has been executed 

with the BLM, or an applicant for a BLM authorization or permit. 

Standard: A description of the physical and biological conditions or degree 

of function required for healthy, sustainable lands (e.g., land health 

standards). 

Stand Basal Area: The sum of the cross-sectional area of all living trees in a stand, 

measured at "breast height" or 4.5 feet high on the uphill side of 

the trees.

Stand Vigor: General term that refers to the current growth and health of the 

stand. Live crown ratio is a measure of stand vigor. For example, 

most stands with an average live crown ratio of 50% or more have 

vigorous growth. Most stands with an average of less than 20% 

live crown ratio have poor vigor. 

Stipulations: Requirements that are part of the terms of a mineral lease. Some 

stipulations are standard on all federal leases. Other stipulations 
200 Worland Approved RMP

Glossary September 2015

may be applied to the lease at the discretion of the surface 

management agency to protect valuable surface resources and uses.

Stock Driveway: A strip of land specifically designated for the controlled movement 

of livestock. 

Stock Trail: A trail constructed across a natural barrier to permit movement of 

livestock to otherwise inaccessible areas.

Suitable River: An eligible river segment found through administrative study to

meet the criteria for designation as a component of the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System, as specified in Section 4(a) of the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Surface-Disturbing 

Activities:

An action that alters the vegetation, surface/near surface soil 

resources, and/or surface geologic features, beyond natural site 

conditions and on a scale that affects other public land values. 

Examples of surface-disturbing activities may include: operation of 

heavy equipment to construct well pads, roads, pits, and reservoirs; 

installation of pipelines and power lines; and the conduct of 

several types of vegetation treatments (e.g., prescribed fire).

Surface-disturbing activities may be either authorized or prohibited. 

(Information Bulletin WY 2007-029). 

Suspension: The temporary withholding from active use, through a decision 

issued by the authorized officer or by agreement, of part or all of 

the permitted use in a grazing permit or lease (43 CFR Part 4100). 

These AUMs could potentially be re-authorized for use if range 

conditions improve. 

Sustainability: The ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes and

functions, biological diversity, and productivity over time. 

Tank: A reservoir of any construction for water storage. 

Technical/Economically 

Feasible:

Actions that are practical or feasible from the technical and 

economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply 

desirable from the standpoint of the applicant. It is the BLM’s 

sole responsibility to determine what actions are technically

and economically feasible. The BLM will consider whether 

implementation of the proposed action is likely given past and 

current practice and technology; this consideration does not 

necessarily require a cost-benefit analysis or speculation about 

an applicant’s costs and profit. (Modified from the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s 40 Most Asked Questions and BLM 

NEPA Handbook, Section 6.6.3) 

Tentative Classification: The process where rivers are segmented according to the criteria

and classes established in Section 2(b) of the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act. These classifications are based on an analysis of the 

present level of development within the stream corridor at the time
Worland Approved RMP 201

September 2015 Glossary

the inventory was completed. These classifications also control the 

level of development that may occur within a stream corridor, once 

a stream is determined eligible or suitable and a classification is 

assigned. The classifications are:

1. Recreational: rivers or sections of rivers that are readily 

accessible by road or railroad and that may have some 

development along their shorelines and may have undergone 

some impoundments or diversion in the past.

2. Scenic: rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments, 

with shorelines or watersheds still largely undeveloped but 

accessible in places by roads. 

3. Wild: rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments and 

generally inaccessible except by trails, with watersheds or 

shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. 

Threatened Species: Any plant or animal species defined under the Endangered Species

Act as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range; listings are 

published in the FR. 

Timeliness: The lack of a time lag between impacts and the achievement of 

compensatory mitigation goals and objectives (BLM Manual 

Section 1794). 

Timing Limitation 

Stipulation (TLS):

Prohibits surface use during specified time periods to protect 

identified resource values.

Trail: A linear route managed for human-powered, stock, or off-highway 

vehicle forms of transportation or for historical or heritage values. 

Trails are not generally managed for use by four-wheel drive or 

high clearance vehicles.

Transfer of Grazing 

Preference:

The BLM’s approval of an application to transfer grazing preference 

from one party to another or from one base property to another, 

or both. Grazing preference means a superior or priority position 

against others for the purposes of receiving a grazing permit or 

lease. This priority is attached to base property owned or controlled 

by the permittee or lessee.

Trend: The direction of change in ecological status or resource value rating

observed over time. Trend in ecological status should be described 

as toward, or away from the potential natural community, or as not 

apparent. Trend in resource value rating for a specific use should be 

described as up, down, or not apparent. Trends in resource value 

rating for several uses on the same site at a given time may be in 

different directions, and there is no necessary correlation between 

trends in resource value rating and trend in ecological status.

Two-track Vehicle 

Trails:

A two-track is where perennial vegetation is devoid or scarce, 

or where wheel tracks are continuous depressions in the soil yet 

evident to the casual observer and are vegetated.
202 Worland Approved RMP

Glossary September 2015

Undeveloped 

Recreation-Tourism 

Market:

Unnecessary or Undue 

Degradation: 

National, regional, or local recreation-tourism visitors, 

communities, or other constituents who value public lands for 

the distinctive kinds of dispersed recreation produced by the vast 

size and largely open, undeveloped character of their recreation

settings. Major investments in facilities are excluded within special 

recreation management areas where the BLM’s strategy is to target 

demonstrated undeveloped recreation-tourism market demand. 

Here, recreation management actions are geared toward meeting 

primary recreation-tourism market demand to sustain distinctive 

recreation setting characteristics; however, major investments in 

visitor services are authorized both to sustain those distinctive 

setting characteristics and to maintain visitor freedom to choose 

where to go and what to do—all in response to demonstrated 

demand for undeveloped recreation. 

Conditions, activities, or practices that: (1) Fail to comply with 

one or more of the following: the performance standards in 43 

CFR §3809.420, the terms and conditions of an approved plan of 

operations, operations described in a complete notice, and other 

federal and state laws related to environmental protection and 

protection of cultural resources; (2) Are not “reasonably incident” 

to prospecting, mining, or processing operations as defined in 43 

CFR §3715. 0–5 of this chapter; or (3) Fail to attain a stated level 

of protection or reclamation required by specific laws in areas 

such as the California Desert Conservation Area, Wild and Scenic 

Rivers, BLM-administered portions of the National Wilderness 

System, and BLM-administered National Monuments and National 

Conservation Areas.

Uplands: Lands at higher elevations than alluvial plains or low stream 

terraces; all lands outside the riparian-wetland and aquatic zones. 

Use/Utilization: (1) The proportion of the current years forage production that is

consumed or destroyed by animals (including insects), generally 

expressed as a percentage. May refer either to a single species or 

to the vegetation as a whole. (2) Utilization of range for a purpose 

such as grazing, bedding, shelter, trailing, watering, watershed, 

recreation, forestry, etc.

Valid Existing Rights: Documented, legal rights or interests in the land that allow a 

person or entity to use said land for a specific purpose and that are 

still in effect. Such rights include, but are not limited to, fee title 

ownership, mineral rights, rights-of-way, easements, permits, and 

licenses. Such rights may have been reserved, acquired, leased, 

granted, permitted, or otherwise authorized over time. 

Vegetation: Plants in general, or the sum total of the plant live above and below 

ground in an area. 

Vegetation Treatment: Mechanical Treatment: Use of vehicles such as wheeledtractors,

crawler type tractors, or specially designed vehicles with attached
Worland Approved RMP 203

September 2015 Glossary

implements designed to cut, uproot, or chop existing vegetation. 

Includes manual treatments involving hand tools, and hand-operated 

power tools to cut, clear, or prune herbaceous and woody species. 

Biological Treatments: Intentional use of domestic animals, insects, 

nematodes, mites, or pathogens that weaken or destroy vegetation. 

Chemical Treatments: Use of chemicals (herbicides) to kill or 

injure plants. 

Vegetative Diversity: The variety of vegetative types in an area, including species, the 

genetic differences among species and populations, the communities 

and ecosystems in which vegetation types occur, and the structure 

and seral stage of these communities. Vegetative diversity includes 

rare as well as common vegetative types, and typically supports a 

diverse array of animal species and communities.

Viewshed: Term used in Visual Resource Management (VRM) to describe 

“...landscape that can be seen under favorable atmospheric 

conditions from a viewpoint (key observation point) or along a 

transportation corridor” (BLM 1984). 

Visual Resource 

Management (VRM) 

Classes:

● Class I: The objective of this class is to maintain a landscape 

setting that appears unaltered by humans. It is applied to 

wilderness areas, some natural areas, wild portions of wild and 

scenic rivers, and other similar situations in which management 

activities are to be restricted.

● Class II: The objective of this class is to design proposed 

alterations so as to retain the existing character of the landscape. 

The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be 

low. Management activities may be seen, but should not attract 

the attention of the casual observer. Any changes must repeat 

the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the 

predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

● Class III: The objective of this class is to design proposed 

alterations so as to partially retain the existing character of the 

landscape. Contrasts to the basic elements (form, line, color, 

and texture) caused by a management activity may be evident 

and begin to attract attention in the characteristic landscape; 

however, the changes should remain subordinate to the existing 

characteristic landscape.

● ClassIV: The objective of this classisto provide for management 

activities that require major modification of the existing character 

of the landscape. Contrasts may attract attention and be a 

dominant feature of the landscape in terms of scale; however, 

changes should repeat the basic elements (form, line, color, and 

texture) inherent in the characteristic landscape.

Visual Resources: The visible physical features of a landscape (topography, water,

vegetation, animals, structures, and other features) that constitute 

the scenery of an area.
204 Worland Approved RMP

Glossary September 2015

Watershed: See Basin. 

Weed: Any undesirable or troublesome plant, especially one that grows 

profusely where it is not wanted. Weeds can be native or nonnative, 

invasive or noninvasive, and noxious or not noxious.

Western Association 

of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies (WAFWA) 

Management Zone 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Teams: 

WAFWA management zones will be used to identify and address 

cross-state issues, such as regional mitigation and adaptive 

management monitoring and response, through WAFWA 

Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Teams 

(Teams). These Teams will convene and respond to issues at the 

appropriate scale, and will utilize existing coordination and 

management structures to the extent possible. 

Wetlands: Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater 

often and long enough to support, and under normal circumstances 

do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in 

saturated soil conditions. 

Wilderness: A congressionally designated area of undeveloped federal land

retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent 

improvements or human habitation, that is protected and managed 

to preserve its natural conditions and that: (1) generally appears 

to have been affected mainly by the forces of nature, with 

human imprints substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation; (3) has at least 5,000 acres or is large enough to make 

practical its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and

(4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of 

scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value. The definition is 

contained in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 

891) (from H-6310-1, Wilderness Inventory and Study Procedures). 

Wilderness 

Characteristics:

Wilderness characteristics include size, the appearance of 

naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, or a primitive 

and unconfined type of recreation. They may also include 

ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, 

scenic, or historical value. However Section 2(c) of the Wilderness 

Act of 1964 has been updated by IM-2003-195, dated June 20, 2003. 

Indicators of an area’s naturalness include the extent of landscape 

modifications, the presence of native vegetation communities,

and the connectivity of habitats. Outstanding opportunities for 

solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation may be 

experienced when the sights, sounds, and evidence of other people 

are rare or infrequent, in locations where visitors can be isolated, 

alone or secluded from others, where the use of the area is through 

nonmotorized, non-mechanical means, and where no or minimal 

developed recreation facilities are encountered.
Worland Approved RMP 205

September 2015 Glossary

Wilderness Study Area: A roadless area or island that has been inventoried and found to have 

wilderness characteristics as described in Section 603 of FLPMA 

and Section 2 (c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 891). 

Wildfire: Unplanned ignition caused by lightning, volcanoes, unauthorized 

and accidental human-caused fires and escaped prescribedfires.

Wildland Fire: A general term describing any non-structure fire that occurs in 

vegetation and/or natural fuels.

Wildland Industrial 

Interface:

Wildland Urban 

Interface (WUI):

Wildlife-Disturbing 

Activity:

Wildlife Habitat 

Management Area 

(WHMA):

The area where industrial development meets or intermingles with 

undeveloped wildland. 

The Healthy Forest Recreation Act 2003 defines wildland urban 

interface (WUI) (section 101) as an area within or adjacent to an 

at-risk community that has been identified by a community in 

its wildfire protection plan or, for areas that do not have such a 

plan, an area extending (1) 1⁄2 mile from the boundary of an at risk 

community, or (2) 11⁄2 miles when other criteria are met (e.g., a 

sustained steep slope or a geographic feature aiding in creating an 

effective fire break or is condition class III land), or (3) is adjacent 

to an evacuation route. 

BLM-authorized activities other than routine maintenance that may 

cause displacement of or excessive stress to wildlife during critical 

life stages. Wildlife-disturbing activities include human presence, 

noise, and activities using motorized vehicles or equipment. 

Special management areas that are designed to protect or preserve 

certain qualities or uses for wildlife and plant species. The 

environment in these areas is unique in some respects, and it is 

therefore desirable to apply different management prescriptions 

to these areas from those of the surrounding public lands. The 

integration of different land management goals, objectives, and 

actions will be implemented to ensure that the integrity of these 

areas will be maintained. They will be directed toward habitat 

management rather than species management and encompass 

featured species and species diversity to ensure compliance with 

existing laws, prevent species from becoming threatened or

endangered, and provide values and uses for the public. The BLM 

will implement site-specific management actions in coordination 

with other agencies to maintain and/or improve these unique 

wildlife habitat management areas.

Wildlife Security Area: A geographic location or area that typically provides for some, if

not all, of the wildlife species cover and forage needs and where 

wildlife are free from human-caused disturbance and/or disruption. 

Winter Concentration 

Area:

Greater Sage-Grouse winter habitats which are occupied annually 

by Greater Sage-Grouse and provide sufficient sagebrush cover 

and food to support birds throughout the entire winter (especially 
206 Worland Approved RMP

Glossary September 2015

periods with above average snow cover). Many of these 

areas support several different breeding populations of Greater

Sage-Grouse. Greater Sage-Grouse typically show high fidelity 

for these areas, and loss or fragmentation can result in significant 

population impacts. 

Withdrawal: Removal or withholding of public lands, by statute or Secretarial

order, from operation of some or all of the public land laws. A 

mineral withdrawal includes public lands potentially valuable for 

leasable minerals, precluding the disposal of the lands except with a 

mineral reservation clause, unless the lands are found not to contain 

a valuable deposit of minerals. A mineral withdrawal is the closing 

of an area to mineral location and development activities. 

Woodlands: Not capable of producing 20 cubic feet of wood fiber from

commercial species per acre per year.

REFERENCES

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Wash. DC. 

BLM. No Date. Glossary of AML Terms. Available online: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/

more/Abandoned_Mine_Lands/About_AML/aml_glossary_and_acronyms.html. 

BLM. 1984. Visual Resource Management. BLM Manual 8400. 

BLM. 1987. BLM Handbook 1740-1, Renewable Resource Improvement and Treatment 

Guidelines and Procedures. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BLM. 1993. Handbook 8357-1-Byways. Release 8-64. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management. Washington, D.C. Available online: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/

wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.52520.File.dat/h8357-1.pdf. 

BLM. 2001. BLM Handbook H-4180-1, Rangeland Health Standards. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available online: 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/

blm_handbook.Par.61484.File.dat/h4180-1.pdf. 

BLM. 2008. Washington Office Instruction Memorandum No. 2009-018. Process for Setting 

Priorities for Issuing Grazing Permits and Leases. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management. Washington, D.C. Available online: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/

regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2009/IM_2009-018.html. 

BLM. 2012. Washington Office Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-019, Greater Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Management Policy on Wyoming BLM-administered Public Lands Including the Federal 

Mineral Estate. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available online: 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/resources/efoia/IMs/2012.Par.56874.File.dat/

wy2012-019.pdf. 
Worland Approved RMP 207

September 2015 Glossary

Brown, J.K. 1995. Fire regimes and their relevance to ecosystem management. Pages 171-178 

In Proceedings of Society of American Foresters National Convention, Sept. 18-22, 1994, 

Anchorage, AK. Society of American Foresters, Washington D.C. 

Caudle, C., J. DiBenedetto, M. Karl, H. Sanchez, and C. Talbot. 2013. Interagency 

Ecological Site Handbook for Rangelands. Available online: http://jornada.nmsu.edu/files/

InteragencyEcolSiteHandbook.pdf. 

Clark, T.W. and M.R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. University of Kansas – Museum 

of Natural History. Lawrence, Kansas. Pages. 108-111. 

Luce, R. 2003. Personal communication with Dave Roberts (USDI-BLM, Wyoming) regarding 

prairie dog “complexes.” Sierra Vista, AZ.

Prichard, D., J. Anderson, C. Correll, J. Fogg, K. Gebhardt, R. Krapf, S. Leonard, B. Mitchell, 

and J. Staats. 1998. Riparian Area Management: A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning 

Condition and Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and Natural Resources 

Conservation Service Technical Reference 1737-15. 

Stiver, S.J., A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, S.D. Bunnell, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard,

C.W. McCarthy, and M.A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater Sage-Grouse Comprehensive Conservation 

Strategy. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, 

WY.

University of Arizona. No Date. Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Grazing Administration, Glossary. Available online: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/az/

pdfs/3809.Par.41426.File.dat/AZS_n_G.pdf. 

Whicker, A. and J.K. Detling. 1988. Ecological Consequences of Prairie Dog Disturbances. 

Bioscience 38(11): 778-785. 

Worland Approved RMP 207

Appendix A. Maps

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Maps

Map 1-1. Worland Planning Area, Surface Management and Sub-Surface Estate

Map 1-2. Worland Planning Area, Greater Sage Grouse Habitat Management Areas across 

All Jurisdictions

Map 1-3. Worland Decision Area, Greater Sage Grouse Habitat Management Areas for 

BLM Administered Lands

Map 2-1. Worland Habitat Management Areas 

Map 2-2. Worland Livestock Grazing 

Map 2-3. Worland Fluid Minerals (Oil and Gas) 

Map 2-4. Worland Locatable Minerals

Map 2-5. Worland Salable Minerals (Mineral Materials) 

Map 2-6. Worland Wind Energy 

Map 2-7. Worland Designated Utility Corridors 

Map 2-8. Worland Rights-of-Way 

Map 2-9. Worland Land Tenure 

Map 2-10. Worland Trails & Travel Management (OHV)

September 2015

Appendix A Maps 

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Maps
208 Worland Approved RMP

Worland Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan 

Maps

Map 1-4. Surface Ownership within the Worland Field Office 

Map 1-5. Mineral Ownership within the Worland Field Office 

Map 3-1. Physical Resources – Water – Worland Field Office

Map 3-2. Mineral Resources – Locatable – Bentonite-Bearing Strata 

Map 3-3. Mineral Resources – Locatable – Gypsum-Bearing Strata 

Map 3-4. Mineral Resources – Locatable 

Map 3-5. Mineral Resources – Leasable – Coal-Bearing Strata 

Map 3-6. Mineral Resources – Leasable – Geothermal

Map 3-7. Mineral Resources – Leasable – Existing Oil and Gas Leases 

Map 3-8. Mineral Resources – Leasable – Oil and Gas

Map 3-9. Mineral Resources – Leasable – Oil and Gas Management Areas 

Map 3-10. Mineral Resources – Leasable – Producing Oil and Gas Fields

Map 3-11. Mineral Resources – Salable – Mineral Materials Sites

Map 3-12. Mineral Resources – Salable 

Map 3-13. Mineral Resources – Master Leasing Plan

Map 3-14. Biological Resources – Wildlife Management Areas 

Map 3-15. Biological Resources – Vegetation 

Map 3-16. Biological Resources – Fish and Wildlife Resources

Map 3-17. Biological Resources – Special Status Species – Wildlife

Appendix A Maps

Worland Field Office Approved Resource

Management Plan Maps September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 209

Map 3-18. Biological Resources – Wild Horses

Map 3-19. Heritage and Visual Resources – Paleontological Resources 

Map 3-20. Heritage and Visual Resources – Visual Resource Management 

Map 3-21. Land Resources – Lands and Realty Retention, Disposal, and Acquisition 

Map 3-22. Land Resources – Renewable Energy Potential

Map 3-23. Land Resources – Renewable Energy

Map 3-24. Land Resources – Rights-of-Way and Corridors 

Map 3-25. Physical Resources – Soil Slope and Erosion Hazard 

Map 3-26. Land Resources – Travel Management Designations 

Map 3-27. Land Resources – Recreation

Map 3-28. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing – Allotment Categories 

Map 3-29. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing – Closures

Map 3-30. Special Designations – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and other 

Management Areas

Map 3-31. Special Designations – Wilderness Study Areas 

Map 3-32. Special Designations – Historic Trails

Map 3-33. Socioeconomic Resources – Health and Safety

September 2015

Appendix A Maps 

Worland Field Office Approved Resource

Management Plan Maps
This page intentionally 

left blank
Worland Approved RMP 211

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and

Lease Stipulations, including Exception,

Modification, and Waiver Criteria

September 2015 Lease Notices

Appendix B. Oil and Gas Lease Notices and 

Lease Stipulations, including Exception, 

Modification, and Waiver Criteria 

B.1. Lease Notices

A lease notice provides more detailed information concerning limitations that already exist in 

law, lease terms, regulations, or operational orders. A Lease Notice also addresses special items 

the lessee should consider when planning operations, but does not impose new or additional 

restrictions (Uniform Format for Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations, March 1989. Rocky Mountain 

Regional Coordinating Committee). “An information [lease] notice has no legal consequences, 

except to give notice of existing requirements, and may be attached to a lease by the authorized 

officer at the time of lease issuance to convey certain operational, procedural or administrative 

requirements relative to lease management within the terms and conditions of the standard lease 

form. Information [lease] notices shall not be a basis for denial of lease operations.” (43 Code of 

Federal Regulations [CFR] 3101.1-3). There are four standard lease notices that are attached to 

every lease issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within Wyoming (three numbered, 

and one unnumbered lease notice).

LEASE NOTICE NO. 1

Under Regulation 43 CFR 3101.1 2 and terms of the lease (BLM Form 3100 11), the authorized 

officer may require reasonable measures to minimize adverse impacts to other resource values, 

land uses, and users not addressed in lease stipulations at the time operations are proposed. 

Such reasonable measures may include, but are not limited to, modification of siting or design 

of facilities, timing of operations, and specification of interim and final reclamation measures, 

which may require relocating proposed operations up to 200 meters, but not off the leasehold, 

and prohibiting surface-disturbing activities for up to 60 days. 

The lands within this lease may include areas not specifically addressed by lease stipulations that 

may contain special values, may be needed for special purposes, or may require special attention 

to prevent damage to surface and/or other resources. Possible special areas are identified below. 

Any surface use or occupancy within such special areas will be strictly controlled or, if absolutely 

necessary, prohibited. Appropriate modifications to imposed restrictions will be made for the 

maintenance and operation of producing wells. 

1. Slopes in excess of 25 percent.

2. Within 500 feet of surface water and/or riparian areas

3. Construction with frozen material or during periods when the soil materials is saturated or 

when watershed damage is likely to occur.

4. Within 500 feet of Interstate highways and 200 feet of other existing rights-of-way (i.e., 

United States and State highways, roads, railroads, pipelines, power lines).

5. Within 1/4 mile of occupied dwellings.

6. Material sites.

Guidance 

The intent of this notice is to inform interested parties (potential lessees, permittees, operators) 

that when one or more of the above conditions exist, surface-disturbing activities will be
212 Worland Approved RMP

prohibited unless or until the permittee or the designated representative and the surface 

management agency arrive at an acceptable plan for mitigation of anticipated impacts. This 

negotiation will occur prior to development and become a condition for approval when 

authorizing the action. Specific threshold criteria (e.g., 500 feet from water) have been 

established based upon the best information available. However, geographical areas and time 

periods of concern must be delineated at the field level (i.e., “surface water and/or riparian areas” 

may include both intermittent and ephemeral water sources or may be limited to perennial 

surface water). The referenced oil and gas leases on these lands are hereby made subject to the 

stipulation that the exploration or drilling activities will not interfere materially with the use 

of the area as a materials site/free use permit. At the time operations on the above lands are 

commenced, notification will be made to the appropriate agency. The name of the appropriate 

agency may be obtained from the proper BLM Field Office. 

THIS NOTICE APPLIES TO ALL PARCELS.

LEASE NOTICE NO. 2

Background 

The BLM, by including National Historic Trails (NHTs) within its National Landscape 

Conservation System, has recognized these trails as national treasures. The BLM’s responsibility 

is to review the strategy for management, protection, and preservation of these trails. The NHTs 

in Wyoming, which include the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express Trails, 

as well as the Nez Perce Trail, were designated by Congress through the National Trails System 

Act (Public Law (Pub. L.) 90-543; 16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1241-1251) as amended 

through Pub. L. 106-509 dated November 13, 2000. 

Protection of the NHTs is normally considered under the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) (Pub. L. 89- 665; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) as amended through 1992 and the National 

Trails System Act. Additionally, Executive Order 13195, “Trails for America in the 21st 

Century,” signed January 18, 2001, states in Section 1: “Federal agencies will...protect, connect, 

promote, and assist trails of all types throughout the United States. This will be accomplished 

by...(b) Protecting the trail corridors associated with national scenic trails and the high priority 

potential sites and segments of national historic trails to the degrees necessary to ensure that 

the values for which each trail was established remain intact.” Therefore, the BLM will be 

considering all impacts and intrusions to the NHTs, their associated historic landscapes, and all 

associated features, such as trail traces, grave sites, historic encampments, inscriptions, natural 

features frequently commented on by emigrants in journals, letters and diaries, or any other 

feature contributing to the historic significance of the trails. Additional NHTs will likely be 

designated amending the National Trails System Act. When these amendments occur, this notice 

will apply to those newly designated NHTs as well. 

Strategy 

The BLM will proceed in this objective by conducting a viewshed analysis on either side of the 

designated centerline of the NHTs in Wyoming for the purpose of identifying and evaluating 

potential impacts to the trails, their associated historic landscapes, and their associated historic 

features. Subject to the viewshed analysis and archeological inventory, reasonable mitigation 

measures may be applied. These may include, but are not limited to, modification of siting or 

design of facilities to camouflage or otherwise hide the proposed operations within the viewshed. 

Additionally, specification of interim and final reclamation measures may require relocating the 

proposed operations within the leasehold. Surface-disturbing activities will be analyzed in

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and Lease 

Stipulations, including Exception, Modification, and 

Waiver Criteria

Lease Notices September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 213

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and

Lease Stipulations, including Exception,

Modification, and Waiver Criteria

September 2015 Lease Notices

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190; 

42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) as amended through Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975 and Pub. L. 94-83, 

August 9, 1975, and the NHPA, supra, to determine if any design, siting, timing, or reclamation 

requirements are necessary). This strategy is necessary until the BLM determines that, based on 

the results of the completed viewshed analysis and archeological inventory, the existing landuse 

plans (Resource Management Plans [RMP]) have to be amended.

The use of this lease notice is a predecisional action, necessary until final decisions regarding 

surface-disturbing restrictions are made. Final decisions regarding surface-disturbing restrictions 

will take place with full public disclosure and public involvement over the next several years if 

BLM determines that it is necessary to amend existing land use plans.

Guidance

The intent of this notice is to inform interested parties (potential lessees, permittees, operators) 

that when any oil and gas lease contains remnants of NHTs, or is located within the viewshed of a 

NHTs’ designated centerline, surface-disturbing activities will require the lessee, permittee, 

operator or their designated representative, and the surface management agency to arrive at

an acceptable plan for mitigation of anticipated impacts. This negotiation will occur prior to 

development and become a condition for approval when authorizing the action. 

THIS NOTICE APPLIES TO ALL PARCELS.

LEASE NOTICE NO. 3

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat: The lease may in part, or in total, contain important Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitats as identified by the BLM, either currently or prospectively. The operator 

may be required to implement specific measures to reduce impacts of oil and gas operations on 

the Greater Sage-Grouse populations and habitat quality. Such measures shall be developed 

during the Application for Permit to Drill (APD) on-site and environmental review process and 

will be consistent with the lease rights granted.

THIS NOTICE APPLIES TO ALL PARCELS.

UNNUMBERED LEASE NOTICE

Provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended by the Federal Coal Leasing 

Amendments Act of 1976, affect an entity's qualifications to obtain an oil and gas lease. Section 

2(a)(2)(A) of the Mineral Leasing Act, 30 U.S.C. 201 (a)(2)(A), requires that any entity that holds 

and has held a federal coal lease for 10 years beginning on or after August 4, 1976, and who is not 

producing coal in commercial quantities from each such lease, cannot qualify for the issuance 

of any other lease granted under the Mineral Leasing Act. Compliance by coal lessees with 

Section 2(a)(2)(A) is explained in 43 CFR 3472. 

In accordance with the terms of this oil and gas lease, with respect to compliance by the initial 

lessee with qualifications concerning federal coal lease holdings, all assignees and transferees 

are hereby notified that this oil and gas lease is subject to cancellation if: (1) the initial lessee as 

assignor or as transferor has falsely certified compliance with Section 2(a)(2)(A), or (2) because 

of a denial or disapproval by a State Office of a pending coal action, i.e., arms-length assignment, 

relinquishment, or logical mining unit, the initial lessee as assignor or as transferor is no longer in 

compliance with Section 2(a)(2)(A). The assignee, sublessee or transferee does not qualify as

a bona fide purchaser and, thus, has no rights to bona fide purchaser protection in the event of 
214 Worland Approved RMP

cancellation of this lease due to noncompliance with Section 2(a)(2)(A). Information regarding 

assignor, sublessor or transferor compliance with Section 2(a)(2)(A) is contained in the lease case 

file as well as in other BLM records available through the State Office issuing this lease.

ATTACHMENT TO EACH LEASE

B.2. Lease Stipulations

The RMP determines which areas of the planning area are open to fluid mineral leasing, including 

the constraints or conditions open areas are subject to, and which areas are closed to fluid mineral 

leasing. The RMP closes the following areas to mineral leasing: Wilderness Study Areas, cave 

and karst areas, and certain Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. 

In areas open to leasing, the BLM may impose lease stipulations. A lease stipulation is a 

condition of lease issuance that provides a level of protection for other resource values or land 

uses by restricting lease operations during certain times or locations, or to avoid unacceptable 

impacts, to an extent greater than standard lease terms or regulations. These resource values and 

land uses generally include air, wildlife, soil, water, recreation, visual, and cultural resources. 

A stipulation is an enforceable term of the lease contract, which supersedes any inconsistent 

provisions of the standard lease form, and is attached to and made a part of the lease. Lease 

stipulations further implement the BLM’s regulatory authority to protect resources or resource 

values. Lease stipulations are developed through the land use planning process. “The authorized 

officer may require stipulations as conditions of lease issuance. Stipulations shall become part 

of the lease and shall supersede inconsistent provisions of the standard lease form. Any party 

submitting a bid... shall be deemed to have agreed to stipulations applicable to the specific 

parcel...” (43 CFR 3101.1-3).

Exceptions, waivers, and modifications provide an effective means of applying “Adaptive 

Management” techniques to oil and gas leases and associated permitting activities to meet 

changing circumstances. The criteria for approval of exceptions, waivers, and modifications 

should be supported by NEPA analysis, either through the land use planning process or 

site-specific environmental review.

This appendix identifies fluid mineral lease stipulations and addresses the procedure for providing 

exceptions, modifications, and waivers of lease stipulations and the conditions under which they 

may be granted. Procedures for changing Conditions of Approval (COAs) placed on surface 

disturbance and disruptive activity authorizations to protect resource values are the same. The 

BLM cannot apply a no surface occupancy (NSO) restriction after lease issuance. The BLM

can apply timing limitation stipulation (TLS) and controlled surface use (CSU) restrictions, as 

COAs on an Application for Permit to Drill (APD) consistent with lease rights. The criteria for 

exceptions to COAs on APDs is the same as that for leasing in Table B.1, “Oil and Gas Lease

Stipulations — Worland Field Office Planning Area” (p. 216). Additionally, COAs on APDs do 

not apply to other portions of the lease such as maintenance and operation of existing facilities. 

Definitions

The three types of surface stipulations the BLM applies are: (1) NSO, (2) TLS, and (3) CSU. 

● NSO: Use or occupancy of the land surface for fluid mineral exploration or development is 

prohibited in order to protect identified resource values. The minerals under NSO lands may

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and Lease 

Stipulations, including Exception, Modification, and 

Waiver Criteria

Lease Stipulations September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 215

potentially be developed by directionally or horizontally drilling from nearby lands that do not 

have the NSO limitation.

● TLS: Prohibits surface use during a specified time period to protect identified resource values. 

(Seasonal restriction).

● CSU: Use and occupancy is allowed (unless restricted by another stipulation), but identified 

resource values require special operational constraints that may modify lease rights.

Surface use rights are described in more detail at 43 CFR 3101.1-2. 

An applicant may request an exception, modification, or waiver of a stipulation or restriction 

included in a lease or applied as a COA.

● Exception: A one-time exemption to a lease stipulation or COA determined on a case-by-case 

basis.

● Modification: A change to the provisions of a lease stipulation, either temporarily or for 

the term of the lease.

● Waiver: A permanent exemption to a lease stipulation.

Standard Stipulations

The following three stipulations are applied to all BLM-administered fluid mineral leases within 

Wyoming.

LEASE STIPULATION NO. 1: CULTURAL RESOURCES

This lease may be found to contain historic properties and/or resources protected under the 

NHPA, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act, Executive Order 13007, or other statutes and executive orders. The BLM will 

not approve any ground-disturbing activities that may affect any such properties or resources until 

it completes its obligations (e.g., State Historic Preservation Officer and tribal consultation) under 

applicable requirements of the NHPA and other authorities. The BLM may require modification 

to exploration or development proposals to protect such properties, or disapprove any activity that 

is likely to result in adverse effects that cannot be successfully avoided, minimized, or mitigated.

LEASE STIPULATION NO. 2: ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SECTION 7 

CONSULTATION

The lease area may now or hereafter contain plants, animals, or their habitats determined to be 

threatened, endangered, or other special status species. The BLM may recommend modifications 

to exploration and development proposals to further its conservation and management objective 

to avoid BLM-approved activity that will contribute to a need to list such a species or their 

habitat. The BLM may require modifications to or disapprove proposed activity that is likely to 

result in jeopardy to the continued existence of a proposed or listed threatened or endangered 

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of a designated or proposed critical 

habitat. The BLM will not approve any ground-disturbing activity that may affect any such 

species or critical habitat until it completes its obligations under applicable requirements of the 

Endangered Species Act as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., including completion of any 

required procedure for conference or consultation.

LEASE STIPULATION NO. 3: MULTIPLE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and

Lease Stipulations, including Exception,

Modification, and Waiver Criteria

September 2015 Standard Stipulations
216 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and Lease 

Stipulations, including Exception, Modification, and 

Waiver Criteria

Processing Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers September 2015

Operations will not be approved that, in the opinion of the authorized officer, would unreasonably 

interfere with the orderly development and/or production from a valid existing mineral lease 

issued prior to this one for the same lands. 

Worland Planning Area Stipulations

Table B.1, “Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations — Worland Field Office Planning Area” (p. 216) lists 

RMP leasing stipulations applicable under the BLM Worland Field Office Approved RMP (see 

Chapter 3, Approved Resource Management Plan (p. 45)) and possible exceptions, modifications, 

and waivers to those stipulations. Provided with each stipulation is the text of the Decision, the 

Decision record number, and the criteria for considering exceptions, modifications, and waivers. 

Table B.1. Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations — Worland Field Office Planning Area

Record Number 1041

Protected Resource Water

Decision Text Authorize new activities resulting in the surface discharge of produced water where 

compatible with other resource objectives and in consultation with stakeholders.

Require water monitoring plans for new activities resulting in surface discharges of 

water to track changes in receiving channels and to minimize adverse impacts to 

watershed health. If adverse impacts to receiving channels or watershed health occur, 

require development and implementation of water management plans which include 

reclamation strategies and mitigation to address impacts.

Avoid or mitigate BLM-authorized activities and infrastructure such as unlined 

impoundment ponds/pits, reserve pits, and evaporation ponds that could result in the 

contamination of sensitive water resources, including Source Water Protection Areas 

identified in Wellhead or Source Water Protection Plans approved local governing 

bodies and “High” and “Moderately High” sensitivity aquifer systems identified 

through the use of the Wyoming Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment Handbook or 

similar document as updated over time, on a case-by-case basis. BMPs appropriate 

for consideration to mitigate potential water quality impacts are listed in Appendix C,

Required Design Features and Best Management Practices (p. 249).

Stipulation Type Lease Notice

RMP Acres Affected N/A

Stipulation Description Lease Notice. Require water monitoring plans for new activities resulting in surface 

discharges of water to track changes in receiving channels and to minimize adverse 

impacts to watershed health. If adverse impacts to receiving channels or watershed 

health occur, require development and implementation of water management plans 

which include reclamation strategies and mitigation to address impacts.

Avoid BLM-authorized activities and infrastructure such as unlined impoundment 

ponds/pits, reserve pits, and evaporation ponds that could result in the contamination 

of sensitive water resources, including Source Water Protection Areas identified in 

Wellhead or Source Water Protection Plans approved local governing bodies and 

“High” and “Moderately High” sensitivity aquifer systems identified through the 

use of the Wyoming Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment Handbook orsimilar

document as updated over time to the maximum extent possible. Where such activities 

or infrastructure cannot be avoided, apply mitigation to reduce potential impacts

on a case-by-case basis. BMPs appropriate for consideration to mitigate potential 

water quality impacts are listed in Appendix C, Required Design Features and Best

Management Practices (p. 249).

Record Number 1042

Protected Resource Public Water Supply Areas
Worland Approved RMP 217

Decision Text Avoid activities that could negatively affect water resources within a 1⁄4 mile area 

around public water supply wells, and an area including 1⁄4 mile on both sides of a 

river or stream, for 10 miles upstream of the public water supply intake, within the 

watershed. For lakes and reservoirs, this would include a 1⁄4 mile area around the 

waterbody. For unavoidable activities in these areas, site specific mitigation will be 

included to minimize risk of adverse impacts.

Stipulation Type CSU

RMP Acres Affected 986 acres

Stipulation Description Controlled Surface Use (CSU). Surface occupancy or use is restricted within 1⁄4 

mile of water resources, public water supply wells and up to 10 miles upstream of 

public water supply intake areas. (1) Prior to surface disturbance within 1⁄4 mile of 

water resources, public water supply wells and up to 10 miles upstream of public 

water supply intake areas, a site-specific plan must be submitted to the BLM by the

applicant as a component of the Application for Permit to Drill (BLM Form 3160-3) or 

Sundry Notice (BLM Form 3160-5) – Surface Use Plan of Operations. The operator 

shall not initiate surface-disturbing activities unless the BLM authorized officer has 

approved the plan (with conditions, as appropriate). The plan must demonstrate to 

the BLM authorized officer’s satisfaction how the operator will meet the following 

performance standards:

● Reserve pits are eliminated through the use of closed loop drilling techniques, 

unless a pit is needed for critical safety reasons. Any necessary pits should be 

designed to prevent possible contamination of soil and groundwater.

● Evaporation ponds are not sited within this area.

● All oil and gas related infrastructure is set back a minimum of 500 feet from a 

public water supply well or intake area.

● Drill pad sites should be designed to disperse storm water runoff onto upland sites 

using proper erosion and sediment control techniques.

● Design drilling programs for water resource and public water supplyprotection.

(2) as mapped by the WDEQ or Worland Field Office GIS database; (3) to protect 

water resources and public water supplies.

Exception: The BLM authorized officer may grant an exception if it is determined 

that the action is of a scale, sited in a location, or otherwise designed so that the 

proposed action would not result in a risk to public water supplies.

Modification: The BLM authorized officer may grant a modification if it is 

determined that a portion of the lease is no longer located within 1⁄4 mile of public 

water supply resources.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the BLM authorized officer determines 

that the entire leasehold is not located within 1⁄4 mile of public water supply wells or 

public water supply intake areas.

Record Number 2034

Protected Resource Absaroka Front MLP analysis area: Wildlife habitat inside elk crucial winter range

Decision Text Zone 3 – Areas inside elk crucial winter range are subject to CSU. Oil and gas-related 

surface disturbances are restricted to no more than 1 location per lease, to include 1 

well pad and ancillary facilities. Total surface disturbance per lease will not exceed 64 

acres. A minimum lease size of 1,280 noncontiguous acres of federal mineral estate is 

required inside elk crucial winter range. Smaller parcels may be leased only when 

1,280 acres of federal mineral estate are not available and leasing is necessary to 

remain in compliance with laws, regulations and policy; for example, to protect the 

federal mineral estate from drainage or to commit the federal mineral estate to unit or 

communitization agreements.

● Allow additional disturbance pending acceptable final reclamation.

● Co-locate new disturbance where technically feasible.

● Utilize unitization to minimize surface disturbance in elk crucial winterrange.

Stipulation Type CSU

RMP Acres Affected 19,499 acres
218 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and Lease 

Stipulations, including Exception, Modification, and 

Waiver Criteria

Processing Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers September 2015

Stipulation Description Controlled Surface Use (CSU). Surface occupancy or use will be restricted or 

prohibited within Zones 1 and 3 inside elk crucial winter range of the Absaroka Front 

MLP analysis area (1) Surface occupancy or use will be restricted to no more than

1 location per lease, to include 1 well pad and ancillary facilities. Total surface 

disturbance per lease will not exceed 64 acres; (2) as mapped by in the Worland 

Field Office GIS database; (3) protecting elk crucial winter range within Zone 3 of 

the Absaroka Front MLP analysis area.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmentalrecord 

of review determines that the action, as proposed or conditioned, would not impair 

the function or utility of the site for the current or subsequent seasonal habitat,

life-history, or behavioral needs of elk. The BLM can and does grant exceptions ifthe 

BLM, in coordination with the WGFD, determines that granting an exception would 

not adversely impact the population being protected. Any changes to this stipulation 

will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or the regulatory provisions 

for such changes.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the area subject to the stipulation if 

an environmental record of review finds that a portion of the area is nonessential, or 

it is identified through scientific research or monitoring that the existing criteria are 

inadequate or overly protective for maintaining the function or utility of the site for 

the seasonal habitat, life-history, or behavioral needs of the elk. Any changes to this 

stipulation will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or the regulatory 

provisions for such changes.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived over the entire lease if, in coordination 

with the State wildlife agency, it is determined that the lease is no longer within elk 

crucial winter range or is no longer located within the Absaroka Front MLP analysis 

area. Any changes to this stipulation will be made in accordance with the land use 

plan and/or the regulatory provisions for such changes.

Record Number 2035

Protected Resource Absaroka Front MLP analysis area: Wildlife habitat

Decision Text Zone 3 – Apply a CSU to avoid locating new surface disturbance within forest type 

vegetation in areas identified as habitat for big game crucial winter range (Map 3-14).

Stipulation Type CSU

RMP Acres Affected 7,068 acres
Worland Approved RMP 219

Stipulation Description Controlled Surface Use (CSU). Surface occupancy or use will be restricted or 

prohibited within Zone 3 of the Absaroka Front MLP analysis area within forest 

type vegetation also identified as big game crucial winter range (1) Prior to surface 

disturbance within Zone 3 forest type vegetation, a site-specific plan must be 

submitted to the BLM by the applicant as a component of the Application forPermit 

to Drill (BLM Form 3160-3) or Sundry Notice (BLM Form 3160-5) – Surface Use 

Plan of Operations. The plan must demonstrate to the BLM authorized officer’s 

satisfaction how the operator will meet the following performance standards:

Design oil and gas development to avoid or reduce unnecessary disturbances to 

forest type vegetation.

(2) as mapped in Worland Field Office GIS database; (3) to protect forest type 

vegetation identified as big game crucial winter range within Zone 3 of the Absaroka 

Front MLP analysis area.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmentalrecord 

of review determines that the action, as proposed or conditioned, would not impair 

the function or utility of the site for the current or subsequent seasonal habitat,

life-history, or behavioral needs of big game. The BLM can and does grant exceptions 

if the BLM, in coordination with the WGFD, determines that granting an exception 

would not adversely impact the population being protected. Any changes to this 

stipulation will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or the regulatory 

provisions for such changes.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the area subject to the stipulation 

if an environmental record of review finds that a portion of the area is nonessential, 

or it is identified through scientific research or monitoring that the existing criteria 

are inadequate or overly protective for maintaining the function or utility of the site 

for the seasonal habitat, life-history, or behavioral needs of big game. Any changes 

to this stipulation will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or the 

regulatory provisions for such changes.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived over the entire lease if, in coordination 

with the State wildlife agency, it is determined that the lease is no longer considered 

in the land use plan to be within big game crucial winter range comprised of forest 

type vegetation, or within the Absaroka Front MLP analysis area. Any changes tothis 

stipulation will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or the regulatory 

provisions for such changes in accordance with the land use plan and/or the regulatory 

provisions for such changes.

Record Number 2036

Protected Resource Absaroka Front MLP analysis area: Recreation

Decision Text Zone 3 – Apply a TLS for surface-disturbing or disruptive activity from September 

1-November 15 to maintain recreational settings for hunting within the Absaroka 

Mountain Foothills SRMA.

Stipulation Type TLS

RMP Acres Affected 10,584 acres
220 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and Lease 

Stipulations, including Exception, Modification, and 

Waiver Criteria

Processing Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers September 2015

Stipulation Description Timing Limitation Stipulation (TLS). Avoid surface-disturbing and disruptive 

activities within Absaroka Mountain Foothills SRMA (1) September 1 to November 

15; (2) as mapped on the Worland Field Office GIS database; (3) protecting 

recreational settings.

Exception: Consider exceptions if exploration and development would not impair 

identified scenic and primitive or semi primitive recreational resource use, considering 

health and safety.

Modification: This stipulation may be modified if a portion of the lease is determined 

by the BLM authorized officer to not be located within the Absaroka Mountain 

Foothills SRMA.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the BLM authorized officer determines 

that the entire lease is no longer managed for recreational settings for hunting or is not 

located within the Absaroka Mountain Foothills SRMA.

Record Number 2038

Protected Resource Fifteen Mile MLP analysis area: Recreation, conserve geologic features, LRP soils

Decision Text Apply a CSU restriction within the Fifteenmile MLP Analysis Area. Allow no more 

than 1 surface disturbance per lease, to include 1 well pad and ancillary facilities, to 

maintain recreational settings, and conserve geologic features, LRP soils, allow no 

more than 1 surface disturbance per lease. Total surface disturbance per lease will not 

exceed 32 acres. A minimum lease size of 640 acres of federal mineral estate would 

be applied within the analysis area. The lease can consist of noncontiguous parcels. 

Smaller parcels may be leased only when 640 acres of federal mineral estate are not 

available and leasing is necessary to remain in compliance with laws, regulations and 

policy; for example, to protect the federal mineral estate from drainage or to commit 

the federal mineral estate to unit or communitization agreements.

● Allow additional disturbance pending acceptable final reclamation.

● Co-locate new disturbance where technically feasible.

● Utilize unitization to control the pace and density of development.

Stipulation Type CSU

RMP Acres Affected 230,869 acres (total Fifteen Mile MLP analysis area)

Stipulation Description Controlled Surface Use (CSU). Surface occupancy or use will be restricted or 

prohibited within the Fifteen Mile MLP analysis area (1) Surface occupancy or use 

will be restricted to no more than 1 surface disturbance per lease, to include 1 well pad 

and ancillary facilities. Total surface disturbance per lease will not exceed 32acres;

(2) as mapped on the Worland Field Office GIS database; (3) protecting recreational 

setting, LRP soils, and geologic features within the Fifteen Mile MLP Analysis Area.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmentalrecord 

of review determines that the action, as proposed or conditioned, would not impair 

the function or utility of the site for geologic features or LRP soils. The BLM can 

and does grant exceptions if the BLM determines that granting an exception would 

not adversely impact the resource being protected. Any changes to this stipulation 

will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or the regulatory provisions 

for such changes.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the area subject to the stipulation if 

an environmental record of review finds that a portion of the area is identified through 

scientific research or monitoring that the existing criteria are inadequate or overly 

protective for maintaining the function or utility of the resource. Any changes to this 

stipulation will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or the regulatory 

provisions for such changes.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived over the entire lease if it is determined that 

the lease is no longer considered in the land use plan to be within the Fifteen Mile 

MLP analysis area. Any changes to this stipulation will be made in accordance with 

the land use plan and/or the regulatory provisions for such changes.

Record Number 2039

Protected Resource Fifteen Mile MLP analysis area: Recreation, conserve geologic features, LRP soils
Worland Approved RMP 221

Decision Text Apply a lease notice to restrict surface disturbance on LRP soils and unique geologic 

features unless the operator and surface managing agency arrive at an acceptable plan 

for mitigation of anticipated impacts, which may include, but not be limited to include 

an Erosion, Revegetation and Restoration Plan.

The plan must demonstrate to the BLM authorized officer’s satisfaction how the 

operator will meet the following performance standards:

● The disturbed area will be stabilized with no evidence of accelerated erosion 

features.

● The disturbed area shall be managed to ensure soil characteristics approximate 

an appropriate reference site with regard to erosional features to maintain soil 

productivity and sustainability.

● Slope stability is maintained preventing slope failure and erosion.

● Sufficient viable topsoil is maintained for ensuring successful final reclamation. At 

locations where interim reclamation will be completed, this will be accomplished 

by respreading all salvaged topsoil over the areas of interim reclamation.

● The original landform and site productivity will be partially restored during interim 

reclamation and fully restored as a result of final reclamation.

Stipulation Type Lease Notice

RMP Acres Affected 230,869 acres (total Fifteen Mile MLP analysis area)

Stipulation Description Lease Notice. Surface occupancy or use will be restricted or prohibited within the 

Fifteen Mile MLP analysis area (1) unless the operator and surface managing agency 

arrive at an acceptable plan for mitigation of anticipated impacts, which mayinclude, 

but not be limited to include an Erosion, Revegetation and Restoration Plan.

Prior to surface disturbance on limited reclamation potential areas a site-specific

construction, stabilization, and reclamation plan (Plan) must be submitted to the

BLM by the applicant as a component of the APD (BLM Form 3160-3) or Sundry

Notice (BLM Form 3160-5) – Surface Use Plan of Operations. The Plan must include

designs approved and stamped by a licensed engineer. The operator shall not initiate

surface-disturbing activities unless the BLM authorized officer has approved the 

Plan (with conditions, as appropriate).

Record Number 2040

Protected Resource Fifteen Mile MLP analysis area: Recreation, conserve geologic features, LRP soils

Decision Text Limit off-road vehicular use for NOS level casual use actions within the Fifteenmile 

MLP Analysis Area. Allow OHV and mechanized (mountain bike) travel up to 300 

feet from established roads in areas with limited travel designations to allow for 

staking activities, provided that: 1) no resource damage occurs; 2) no new routes are 

created; and 3) such access is not otherwise prohibited by the BLM authorized officer.

Stipulation Type Lease Notice

RMP Acres Affected 230,869 acres (total Fifteen Mile MLP analysis area)

Stipulation Description Limit off-road vehicular use for NOS level casual use actions within the Fifteenmile

MLP Analysis Area. Allow OHV and mechanized (mountain bike) travel up to 300

feet from established roads in areas with limited travel designations to allow for

staking activities, provided that: 1) no resource damage occurs; 2) no new routes are

created; and 3) such access is not otherwise prohibited by the BLM authorized officer.

Record Number 2042 and 4078

Protected Resource Big Horn Front MLP analysis area: Wildlife migration corridors

Decision Text Apply an NSO restriction: Prohibit surface-disturbing activities within 1⁄2 mile of big 

game migration corridors within the Big Horn Front MLP Analysis Area.

Stipulation Type NSO

RMP Acres Affected 12,890 acres
222 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and Lease 

Stipulations, including Exception, Modification, and 

Waiver Criteria

Processing Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers September 2015

Stipulation Description No surface occupancy (NSO). No surface occupancy is permitted (1) within 1⁄2 mile 

of big game migration corridors within the Big Horn Front MLP analysis area; (2) 

as mapped on the Worland Field Office GIS database.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmentalrecord 

of review determines that the action, as proposed or conditioned, would not impair 

the function or utility of the site for the current or subsequent seasonal habitat,

life-history, or behavioral needs of big game. The BLM can and does grant exceptions 

if the BLM, in coordination with the WGFD, determines that granting an exception 

would not adversely impact the population being protected. Any changes to this 

stipulation will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or the regulatory 

provisions for such changes.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the area subject to the stipulation 

if an environmental record of review finds that a portion of the area is nonessential, 

or it is identified through scientific research or monitoring that the existing criteria 

are inadequate or overly protective for maintaining the function or utility of the site 

for the seasonal habitat, life-history, or behavioral needs of big game migration. Any 

changes to this stipulation will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or 

the regulatory provisions for such changes.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived over the entire lease if, in coordination with 

the State wildlife agency, if it is determined that the entire leasehold is greater than

1⁄2 mile from big game migration corridors within the Big Horn Front MLP Analysis 

Area or if there are no big game migration corridors within the lease boundary. Any 

changes to this stipulation will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or 

the regulatory provisions for such changes.

Record Number 2043

Protected Resource Big Horn Front MLP analysis area: Wildlife habitat inside elk crucial winter range

Decision Text Apply a CSU: Within elk crucial winter range, oil and gas-related surface disturbances 

would be restricted to no more than 1 location per lease, to include 1 well pad and 

ancillary facilities. A minimum lease size of 1,280 acres of federal mineral estate 

would be required. The lease can consist of noncontiguous parcels. Total surface 

disturbance per lease will not exceed 64 acres. Smaller parcels may be leased only 

when 1,280 acres of federal mineral estate is not available and leasing is necessary to 

remain in compliance with laws, regulations and policy; for example, to protect the 

federal mineral estate from drainage or to commit the federal mineral estate to unit or 

communitization agreements.

● Allow additional disturbance pending acceptable final reclamation.

● Co-locate new disturbance where technically feasible.

● Utilize unitization to minimize surface disturbance in crucial winter range.

Stipulation Type CSU

RMP Acres Affected 59,245 acres
Worland Approved RMP 223

Stipulation Description Controlled Surface Use (CSU). Surface occupancy or use will be restricted or 

prohibited inside elk crucial winter range within the Big Horn Front MLP analysis 

area (1) Surface occupancy or use will be restricted to no more than 1 location per 

lease, to include 1 well pad and ancillary facilities. Total surface disturbance per lease 

will not exceed 64 acres; (2) as mapped on the Worland Field Office GIS database; (3) 

protecting elk crucial winter range within the Big Horn Front MLP analysis area.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmentalrecord 

of review determines that the action, as proposed or conditioned, would not impair 

the function or utility of the site for the current or subsequent seasonal habitat,

life-history, or behavioral needs of elk. The BLM can and does grant exceptions ifthe 

BLM, in coordination with the WGFD, determines that granting an exception would 

not adversely impact the population being protected. Any changes to this stipulation 

will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or the regulatory provisions 

for such changes.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the area subject to the stipulation if 

an environmental record of review finds that a portion of the area is nonessential, or 

it is identified through scientific research or monitoring that the existing criteria are 

inadequate or overly protective for maintaining the function or utility of the site for 

the seasonal habitat, life-history, or behavioral needs of the elk. Any changes to this 

stipulation will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or the regulatory 

provisions for such changes.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived over the entire lease if, in coordination with 

the State wildlife agency, it is determined that the lease is no longer within elk crucial 

winter range or located within the Big Horn Front MLP analysis area.

Record Number 2043

Protected Resource Big Horn Front MLP analysis area – Big game winter range

Decision Text Apply a TLS to avoid surface-disturbing and disruptive activities within big game 

crucial winter range from November 15 through April 30. In addition, apply a TLS 

to avoid surface-disturbing and disruptive activities within elk winter range from 

November 15 through April 30 within the Big Horn Front MLP Analysis Area.

Stipulation Type TLS

RMP Acres Affected 59,245 acres

Stipulation Description Timing Limitation Stipulation (TLS). Avoid surface-disturbing and disruptive 

activities within big game winter range (1) from Nov 15 to Apr 30; (2) as mapped on

the Worland Field Office GIS database; (3) protecting big game winter range.

Exception: The BLM authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator 

demonstrates that the big game winter range areas are not occupied during the period 

of concern, subject to confirmation by the BLM, in coordination with WGFD.

Modification: The BLM authorized officer may modify the area subject to the 

stipulations based upon BLM evaluation in coordination with WGFD to determine 

that the big game winter range is not present or boundaries of the subject winter range 

areas have been refined. The BLM authorized officer may modify the area subject to 

the stipulations based upon BLM evaluation in coordination with WGFD to determine 

that big game winter range is not present or boundaries of the subject winter range 

areas have been refined.

Waiver: The BLM authorized officer may grant a waiver if it is determined that the 

entire lease area is no longer within big game winter range, in coordination with 

WGFD.

Record Number 2044

Protected Resource Big Horn Front MLP analysis area: Recreational settings

Decision Text Limit off-road vehicular use for NOS level casual use actions within the Big Horn 

Front MLP Analysis Area. Allow OHV and mechanized (mountain bike) travel up to 

300 feet from established roads in areas with limited travel designations to allow for 

staking activities, provided that: 1) no resource damage occurs; 2) no new routes are 

created; and 3) such access is not otherwise prohibited by the BLM authorized officer.
224 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and Lease 

Stipulations, including Exception, Modification, and 

Waiver Criteria

Processing Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers September 2015

Stipulation Type Lease Notice

RMP Acres Affected 236,261 acres

Stipulation Description Limit off-road vehicular use for NOS level casual use actions within the Big Horn

Front MLP Analysis Area. Allow OHV and mechanized (mountain bike) travel up to

300 feet from established roads in areas with limited travel designations to allow for

staking activities, provided that: 1) no resource damage occurs; 2) no new routes are

created; and 3) such access is not otherwise prohibited by the BLM authorized officer.

Record Number 4035

Protected Resource Water, Riparian/Wetland: Within 500 feet perennial surface water, and 

riparian/wetland areas

Decision Text Prohibit surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of surface water and 

riparian/wetland areas (61,009 acres) except when such activities are necessary and 

when their impacts can be mitigated.

Stipulation Type NSO

RMP Acres Affected 61,009 acres

Stipulation Description No surface occupancy (NSO). No surface occupancy (1) within 500 feet of perennial 

surface water, riparian/wetland areas, and playas; (2) as mapped on the Worland 

Field Office GIS database.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if, based upon an 

evaluation by the BLM, it is determined that the proposal would not adversely affect 

perennial surface waters, riparian/wetland areas and/or playas.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the area subject to the stipulation 

if, based upon an evaluation by the BLM, it is determined that portion of the lease is 

not located within 500 feet of perennial surface waters, riparian/wetland areasand/or 

playas or if impacts can be adequately mitigated.

Waiver: The authorized officer may grant a waiver if it is determined that the entire 

lease area is not within 500 feet of perennial surface waters, riparian/wetland areas 

and/or playas. This determination will be based upon an evaluation by the BLM.

Record Number 4053

Protected Resource Water, Riparian/Wetland, Fish and Wildlife

Decision Text Apply an NSO restriction and prohibit surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet 

and apply a CSU and avoid surface-disturbing activities within 1⁄4 mile of any waters 

rated by the WGFD as Blue Ribbon or Red Ribbon (trout streams of national or 

statewide importance).

Stipulation Type CSU

RMP Acres Affected CSU: 237,125 acres
Worland Approved RMP 225

Stipulation Description Controlled Surface Use (CSU). Surface occupancy or use is restricted within 1⁄4 mile 

of waters rated by the WGFD as Class 1 or 2 fisheries. (1) Prior to surface disturbance 

within 1⁄4 mile of waters rated by the WGFD as Class 1 or 2 fisheries, a site-specific 

plan must be submitted to the BLM by the applicant as a component of the Application 

for Permit to Drill (BLM Form 3160-3) or Sundry Notice (BLM Form 3160-5) – 

Surface Use Plan of Operations. The operator shall not initiate surface-disturbing 

activities unless the BLM authorized officer has approved the plan (with conditions, as 

appropriate). The plan must demonstrate to the BLM authorized officer’s satisfaction 

how the operator will meet the following performance standards:

● Reserve pits should be designed to prevent possible contamination of soil and 

groundwater.

● Drill pad sites should be designed to disperse storm water runoff onto upland sites 

using proper erosion and sediment control techniques.

● Design road crossing of streams to allow fish passage at all flows.

● Design crossings such that they do not destabilize the channel or increase water 

velocity.

● Limit surface-disturbing activities within water channels during spring and fall 

spawning periods.

(2) as mapped on the Worland Field Office GIS database; (3) to protect designated 

Blue Ribbon and Red Ribbon fisheries habitat and fish populations.

Exception: The BLM authorized officer may grant an exception if it is determined 

that the action is of a scale, sited in a location, or otherwise designed so that the 

proposed action would not result in a decline in fish abundance or range.

Modification: The BLM authorized officer may grant a modification if it is 

determined that a portion of the lease is no longer located within 1⁄4 mile of 

WGFD-designated Blue or Red Ribbon fisheries.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the BLM authorized officer determines 

that the entire leasehold is not located within 1⁄4 mile of WGFD-designated Blue 

or Red Ribbon fisheries.

Record Number 4053

Protected Resource Water, Riparian/Wetland, Fish and Wildlife

Decision Text Apply an NSO restriction and prohibit surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet 

and apply a CSU and avoid surface-disturbing activities within 1⁄4 mile of any waters 

rated by the WGFD as Blue Ribbon or Red Ribbon (trout streams of national or 

statewide importance).

Stipulation Type NSO

RMP Acres Affected NSO: 136,953 acres

Stipulation Description No surface occupancy (NSO). No surface occupancy (1) within 500 feet waters rated 

by the WGFD as Class 1 or 2 fisheries; (2) as mapped on the Worland Field Office 

GIS database.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if, based upon an 

evaluation by the BLM, it is determined that the proposal would not adversely affect 

perennial surface waters, riparian/wetland areas and/or playas.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the area subject to the stipulation 

if, based upon an evaluation by the BLM, it is determined that portion of the lease is 

not located within 500 feet of perennial surface waters, riparian/wetland areasand/or 

playas or if impacts can be adequately mitigated.

Waiver: The authorized officer may grant a waiver if it is determined that the entire 

lease area is not within 500 feet of perennial surface waters, riparian/wetland areas 

and/or playas. This determination will be based upon an evaluation by the BLM.

Record Number 4060

Protected Resource Fish and Wildlife: Bighorn River HMP/RAMP tracts
226 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and Lease 

Stipulations, including Exception, Modification, and 

Waiver Criteria

Processing Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers September 2015

Decision Text Prohibit surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in the Bighorn River HMP/RAMP 

tracts and apply an NSO restriction as appropriate. Exceptions include casual use and 

uses related to the development of recreation facilities or wildlife habitat, including 

vegetation treatments.

Stipulation Type NSO

RMP Acres Affected 15,945 acres

Stipulation Description No surface occupancy (NSO). No surface occupancy is permitted (1) within Bighorn 

River HMP/RAMP tracts (2) protecting fish and wildlife resources.

Exception: The BLM authorized officer may grant an exception if, in coordination 

with the WGFD, it is determined that the action as proposed or conditioned would 

meet the HMP/RAMP management objectives.

Modification: The BLM authorized officer may modify the area subject to the 

stipulation or surface occupancy criteria if, in coordination with the WGFD, it is 

determined that a portion of the lease is not located within the Bighorn River 

HMP/RAMP tracts.

Waiver: The BLM authorized officer may grant a waiver if, in coordination with 

the WGFD, it is determined that the entire lease area is no longer located within 

the Bighorn River HMP/RAMP tracts.

Record Number 4074

Protected Resource Fish and Wildlife: Big game crucial winter range habitat outside of Oil and Gas 

Management Areas

Decision Text Apply a TLS to avoid surface-disturbing and disruptive activities within big game 

crucial winter range (1,458,712 acres) from November 15 through April 30, except 

exempt Oil and Gas Management Areas (Map 3-9) from discretionary big game 

seasonal stipulations.

Stipulation Type TLS

RMP Acres Affected 1,458,712 acres

Stipulation Description Timing Limitation Stipulation (TLS). No surface use is allowed during the following 

time periods. (1) Nov 15 to Apr 30; (2) as mapped on the Worland Field Office GIS

database; (3) protecting big game on crucial winter range.

Exception: The BLM authorized officer may grant an exception if the operator 

demonstrates that the crucial winter range areas are not occupied during the period 

of concern. This determination shall be based upon a BLM evaluation of the area in 

coordination with WGFD.

Modification: The BLM authorized officer may modify the area subject to the 

stipulations based upon a BLM evaluation of the area, in coordination with WGFD, to 

determine any change in boundary/status of big game crucial winter range(s).

Waiver: The BLM authorized officer may grant a waiver if it is determined that the 

entire lease area is no longer supports crucial winter range. This determination shall 

be based upon a BLM evaluation of the area in coordination with WGFD.

Record Number 4075

Protected Resource Fish and Wildlife: Federal mineral estate within the Absaroka Front Management Area
Worland Approved RMP 227

Decision Text Absaroka Front Management Area (51,739 acres of BLM-administered surface land; 

98,852 acres of federal mineral estate):

● a mix of CSU (31,996 acres), NSO (41,215 acres), and closed to leasing (17,184 

acres) on the federal mineral estate (Map 3-14)

● areas available for leasing are open to geophysical exploration with specific 

resource protection

● manage as a renewable energy avoidance area

● manage as a ROW avoidance area

● partially closed to motorized vehicle use and limited to designated roads and trails 

on the rest of the area

Allow and seasonally stipulate, where feasible, vegetative/silviculture treatments; 

invasive, nonnative pest species control; fuels management; and maintenance of 

existing facilities.

Stipulation Type CSU

RMP Acres Affected 31,996 acres

Stipulation Description Controlled Surface Use (CSU). Surface occupancy or use is restricted within the 

Absaroka Front Management Area. (1) Prior to surface disturbance within big game 

crucial habitat, a site-specific plan must be submitted to the BLM by the applicant as 

a component of the Application for Permit to Drill (BLM Form 3160-3) or Sundry 

Notice (BLM Form 3160-5) – Surface Use Plan of Operations. The operator shall not 

initiate surface-disturbing activities unless the BLM authorized officer has approved 

the plan (with conditions, as appropriate). The plan must demonstrate to the BLM 

authorized officer’s satisfaction how the operator will meet the following performance 

standards:

● Design oil and gas development to avoid or reduce unnecessary disturbances, 

wildlife conflicts, and habitat impacts.

● Plan the pattern and rate of development to avoid the most important habitats and 

generally reduce the extent and severity of impacts.

● Cluster drill pads, roads and facilities in specific, “low-impact” areas, if 

geologically feasible.

● Consider “liquid gathering systems” (LGS) to eliminate surface storage tanksand 

reduce truck trips for removal of liquids.

● To the extent practicable, place infrastructure within or near previously disturbed 

locations.

● Minimize infrastructure development and operational activity during life offield 

by using consolidation (e.g., “unitized”) development techniques.

(2) as mapped on the Worland Field Office GIS database; (3) to protect big game 

crucial habitat.

Exception: An exception may be granted by the authorized officer if, in coordination 

with the WGFD, the operator submits a plan that demonstrates that impacts from the 

proposed action can be fully mitigated or there are not practical alternatives.

Modification: The authorized officer may, in coordination with the WGFD, modify 

the boundaries of the stipulation area if (1) a portion of the area is not being used as 

protected range by the identified species, (2) habitat outside of stipulation boundaries 

is being used and needs to be protected, or (3) the migration patterns have changed 

causing a difference in the season of use.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if the authorized officer determines, in 

coordination with the WGFD, that the entire leasehold can be occupied without 

adversely affecting the resources or if the lease is not located within the Absaroka 

Front Management Area.

Record Number 4075

Protected Resource Fish and Wildlife: Federal mineral estate within the Absaroka Front Management Area
228 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and Lease 

Stipulations, including Exception, Modification, and 

Waiver Criteria

Processing Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers September 2015

Decision Text Absaroka Front Management Area (51,739 acres of BLM-administered surface land; 

98,852 acres of federal mineral estate):

● a mix of CSU (31,996 acres), NSO (41,215 acres), and closed to leasing (17,184 

acres) on the federal mineral estate (Map 3-14)

● areas available for leasing are open to geophysical exploration with specific 

resource protection

● manage as a renewable energy avoidance area

● manage as a ROW avoidance area

● partially closed to motorized vehicle use and limited to designated roads and trails 

on the rest of the area

Allow and seasonally stipulate, where feasible, vegetative/silviculture treatments; 

invasive, nonnative pest species control; fuels management; and maintenance of 

existing facilities.

Stipulation Type NSO

RMP Acres Affected 41,215 acres

Stipulation Description No surface occupancy (NSO). No surface occupancy (1) within overlapping wildlife 

migration corridors and big game crucial winter range in the Absaroka Front 

Management Area (2) as mapped on the Worland Field Office GIS database.

Exception: The BLM authorized officer may grant an exception if, in coordination 

with the WGFD, it is determined that the action as proposed or conditioned would 

meet wildlife management objectives.

Modification: The BLM authorized officer may modify the area subject to the

stipulation or surface occupancy criteria if, in coordination with the WGFD, it is 

determined that a portion of the lease is not located within migration corridors or 

overlapping big game crucial winter range or within the Absaroka Front Management 

Area.

Waiver: The BLM authorized officer may grant a waiver if, in coordination with the 

WGFD, it is determined that the entire lease area is no longer located within migration 

corridors or overlapping big game crucial winter range or within the Absaroka Front 

Management Area.

Record Number 4106

Protected Resource Special Status Species: Within 0.6-mile radius of the perimeter Greater Sage-Grouse 

leks within PHMAs

Decision Text Inside PHMAs

Prohibit surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities on or within a 0.6-mile 

radius of the perimeter of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks. The authorized officer 

may grant an exception if an environmental record of review determines that the 

action, as proposed or conditioned, would not impair the function or utility of the site 

for the current or subsequent seasonal habitat, life-history, or behavioral needs of 

Greater Sage-Grouse (Map 3-17).

Stipulation Type NSO

RMP Acres Affected 81,281 acres
Worland Approved RMP 229

Stipulation Description No surface occupancy (NSO). (1) as mapped on the Worland Field Office GIS

database; (2) to protect occupied greater sage-grouse leks and associated seasonal

habitat, life-history, or behavioral needs of greater sage-grouse in proximity to leks

from habitat fragmentation and loss, and protect greater sage-grouse populations from

disturbance within an 0.6-mile radius of the perimeter of occupied greater sage-grouse

leks inside designated PHMAs (Core).

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmental record

of review determines that the action, as proposed or conditioned, would not impair the

function or utility of the site for the current or subsequent seasonal habitat, life-history,

or behavioral needs of Greater Sage-Grouse. The BLM can and does grant exceptions

if the BLM, in coordination with the WGFD, determines that granting an exception

would not adversely impact the population being protected.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the area subject to the stipulation or

the NSO criteria if an environmental record of review finds that a portion of the NSO

area is nonessential, or it is identified through scientific research or monitoring that

the existing criteria are inadequate or overly protective for maintaining the function

or utility of the site for the seasonal habitat, life history, or behavioral needs of the

Greater Sage-Grouse, including (but not limited to) reproductive display, daytime

loafing/staging activities, and nesting.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived over the entire lease if, in coordinationwith

the State wildlife agency, it is determined that the Greater Sage-Grouse lek has been

classified as unoccupied as determined by the State wildlife agency. Any changes 

to this stipulation will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or the

regulatory provisions for such changes. (For guidance on the use of this stipulation,

see BLM Manuals 1624 and 3101.)

Record Number 4106

Protected Resource Special Status Species: Within 1⁄4-mile radius of the perimeter of Greater Sage-Grouse 

leks outside of PHMAs

Decision Text Outside PHMAs

Prohibit surface-disturbing and disruptive activities and apply an NSO restriction 

within a 1⁄4-mile radius of the perimeter of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks (Map 

3-17).

Outside Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs, the BLM’s goal is to sustain important habitats 

that support core populations and to maintain lek persistence over the long term in 

sufficient proportions of the Greater Sage-Grouse population to facilitate movement 

and genetic transfer between core populations, including those found in adjacentstates.

Stipulation Type NSO

RMP Acres Affected 3,157 acres
230 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and Lease 

Stipulations, including Exception, Modification, and 

Waiver Criteria

Processing Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers September 2015

Stipulation Description No surface occupancy (NSO). (1) as mapped on the Worland Field Office GIS

database; (2) to protect occupied greater sage-grouse leks and associated seasonal

habitat, life-history, or behavioral needs of greater sage-grouse in proximity to leks

from habitat fragmentation and loss, and protect greater sage-grouse populations

from disturbance within an 0.25-mile radius of the perimeter of occupied greater

sage-grouse leks outside designated PHMAs (Core)

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmental record

of review determines that the action, as proposed or conditioned, would not impair the

function or utility of the site for the current or subsequent seasonal habitat, life-history,

or behavioral needs of Greater Sage-Grouse. The BLM can and does grant exceptions

if the BLM, in coordination with the WGFD, determines that granting an exception

would not adversely impact the population being protected.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the area subject to the stipulation or

the NSO criteria if an environmental record of review finds that a portion of the NSO

area is nonessential, or it is identified through scientific research or monitoring that

the existing criteria are inadequate or overly protective for maintaining the function

or utility of the site for the seasonal habitat, life history, or behavioral needs of the

Greater Sage-Grouse, including (but not limited to) reproductive display, daytime

loafing/staging activities, and nesting.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived over the entire lease if, in coordinationwith

the State wildlife agency, it is determined that the Greater Sage-Grouse lek has been

classified as unoccupied as determined by the State wildlife agency. Any changes 

to this stipulation will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or the

regulatory provisions for such changes. (For guidance on the use of this stipulation,

see BLM Manuals 1624 and 3101.)

Record Number 4107

Protected Resource Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitats 

inside PHMAs

Decision Text Inside PHMAs

Prohibit disruptive activities on or within a 0.6-mile radius of the perimeter of 

occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks from March 15 to June 30 (81,281 acres).

Prohibit surface-disturbing and/or disruptive activities from March 15 to June 30 

to protect Greater Sage-Grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat

(1,021,583 acres). Apply this timing limitation throughout the PHMAs. Activities in 

unsuitable habitats would be evaluated under the exception and modification criteria 

and could be allowed on a case-by-case basis.

Note: Where credible data support different timeframes for these seasonal restrictions, 

dates may be expanded by up to 14 days prior to or subsequent to the above dates.

Stipulation Type TLS

RMP Acres Affected All PHMAs – 1,021,583 acres
Worland Approved RMP 231

Stipulation Description Timing Limitation Stipulation (TLS). (1) Mar 15 to Jun 30; (2) as mapped on the

Worland Field Office GIS database; (3) no surface use to seasonally protect Greater

Sage-Grouse breeding, nesting and early brood-rearing habitats (independent of

habitat suitability) inside designated PHMAs (Core only).

Where credible data support different timeframes for this restriction, dates may be

expanded by 14 days prior or subsequent to the above dates.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmental record

of review determines that the action, as proposed or conditioned, will not affect

reproductive displays, nest attendance, egg or chick survival, or early brood-rearing

success. Actions designed to enhance the long-term utility or availability of suitable

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat may be exempted from this timing limitation. The BLM

can and does grant exceptions to seasonal restrictions if the BLM, in coordination

with the WGFD, determines that granting an exception would not adversely impact

the population being protected.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the size and shape of the TLS 

area or the TLS criteria if an environmental record of review indicates the actual 

habitat suitability for seasonal Greater Sage-Grouse activities is greater or less than

the stipulated area, or it is identified through scientific research or monitoring that

the existing criteria are inadequate or overly protective for maintaining the function

or utility of the site for the seasonal habitat, life-history, or behavioral needs of the

Greater Sage-Grouse, including (but not limited to) reproductive display, daytime

loafing/staging activities, and nesting.

Waiver: No Waiver.

Record Number 4107

Protected Resource Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitat 

outside PHMAs

Decision Text Outside PHMAs

Prohibit disruptive activities on or within a 1⁄4 mile radius of the perimeter of occupied 

Greater Sage-Grouse leks from March 15 to June 30 (3,157 acres).

Prohibit surface-disturbing and/or disruptive activities in Greater Sage-Grouse nesting 

and early brood-rearing habitat within a 2-mile radius of the perimeter of occupied 

Greater Sage-Grouse leks from March 15 to June 30.

Note: Where credible data support different timeframes for these seasonal restrictions, 

dates may be expanded by up to 14 days prior to or subsequent to the above dates.

Stipulation Type TLS

RMP Acres Affected 3,157 acres and other nesting and brood-rearing habitats identified through 

site-specific analysis.
232 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and Lease 

Stipulations, including Exception, Modification, and 

Waiver Criteria

Processing Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers September 2015

Stipulation Description Timing Limitation Stipulation (TLS). (1) Mar 15 to Jun 30; (2) as mapped on the

Worland Field Office GIS database; (3) no surface use to seasonally protect Greater

Sage-Grouse breeding, nesting and early brood-rearing habitats outside designated

PHMA (Core), within two miles of an occupied lek.

Where credible data support different timeframes for this restriction, dates may be

expanded by 14 days prior or subsequent to the above dates.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmental record

of review determines that the action, as proposed or conditioned, will not affect

reproductive displays, nest attendance, egg or chick survival, or early brood-rearing

success. Actions designed to enhance the long-term utility or availability of suitable

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat may be exempted from this timing limitation. The BLM

can and does grant exceptions to seasonal restrictions if the BLM, in coordination

with the WGFD, determines that granting an exception would not adversely impact

the population being protected.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the size and shape of the TLS 

area or the TLS criteria if an environmental record of review indicates the actual 

habitat suitability for seasonal Greater Sage-Grouse activities is greater or less than

the stipulated area, or it is identified through scientific research or monitoring that

the existing criteria are inadequate or overly protective for maintaining the function

or utility of the site for the seasonal habitat, life-history, or behavioral needs of the

Greater Sage-Grouse, including (but not limited to) reproductive display, daytime

loafing/staging activities, and nesting.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived over the entire lease if, in coordinationwith

the State wildlife agency, it is determined that the Greater Sage-Grouse lek has been

classified as unoccupied as determined by the State wildlife agency. Any changes 

to this stipulation will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or the

regulatory provisions for such changes. (For guidance on the use of this stipulation,

see BLM Manuals 1624 and 3101.)

Record Number 4108

Protected Resource Special Status Species: Greater Sage-Grouse winter habitats/concentration areas

Decision Text Sage-grouse winter concentration areas:

Prohibit surface-disturbing and/or disruptive activities in Greater Sage-Grouse winter 

concentration areas (172,809 acres) from December 1 to March 14.

Evaluate and allow activities in unsuitable habitats within PHMAs in accordance with 

exception and modification criteria on a case-by-case basis.

Protection of additional mapped winter concentration areas in GHMAs would be 

implemented only where winter concentration areas are identified as supporting 

biologically significant numbers of Greater Sage-Grouse nesting in PHMAs and/or 

attending leks within PHMAs. Appropriate seasonal timing restrictions and habitat 

protection measures would be considered and evaluated in consultation with the 

WGFD in all identified winter concentration areas.

Stipulation Type TLS

RMP Acres Affected 196,253 acres
Worland Approved RMP 233

Stipulation Description Timing Limitation Stipulation (TLS). (1) Dec 1 to Mar 14; (2) as mapped by 

the WGFD; (3) no surface use to seasonally protect Greater Sage-Grouse winter

concentration areas in designated PHMAs (Core only), and outside designated

PHMAs (Core only) when supporting wintering Greater Sage-Grouse that attend leks

within designated PHMAs (Core only).

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmentalrecord

of review determines that the action, as proposed or conditioned, will not impair 

the function and suitability of the winter concentration area, or it is determined 

that the winter concentration area is not occupied by concentrated populations of

Greater Sage- Grouse during the period of concern, or it is determined the project

area is within unsuitable habitat. Actions designed to enhance the long-term utility

or availability of suitable Greater Sage-Grouse habitat may be exempted from this 

timing limitation. The BLM can and does grant exceptions to seasonal restrictions 

if the BLM, in coordination with the WGFD, determines that granting an exception

would not adversely impact the population being protected.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the size and shape of the TLS 

area or the TLS criteria if an environmental record of review indicates the actual 

habitat suitability for seasonal Greater Sage-Grouse activities is greater or less than

the stipulated area, or it is identified through scientific research or monitoring that

the existing criteria are inadequate or overly protective for maintaining the function

or utility of the site for the seasonal habitat, life-history, or behavioral needs of the

Greater Sage-Grouse.

Waiver: No Waiver

Record Number 4109

Protected Resource Special Status Species: Density Disturbance within PHMAs

Decision Text Density of Disturbances:

In Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs, the density of disturbance of energy or mining 

facilities would be limited to an average of one site per square mile (640 acres) within 

the DDCT, subject to valid existing rights. The one location and cumulative value

of existing disturbances would not exceed 5 percent of habitat. Utilize the Greater 

Sage-Grouse density disturbance calculation tool described in Appendix D, Greater

Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Strategy (p. 271). Inside PHMA, all suitable 

habitat disturbed (any program area) will not exceed 5 percent within the DDCT 

area using the DDCT process.

Consolidate anthropogenic features from development and transmission on the 

landscape. Allow on a case-by-case basis high profile structures within Greater 

Sage-Grouse nesting habitat.

Sagebrush Treatment: For vegetation treatments in sagebrush within PHMAs, refer to 

WGFD Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit Sage-Grouse (WGFD 2011, as 

updated). These recommended protocols, subject to seasonal conditions of approval, 

would be used in determining whether proposed treatment constitutes a “disturbance” 

that would contribute toward the 5 percent threshold for habitat maintenance.

Additionally, these protocols would be used to determine whether the proposed 

treatment configuration would be expected to have neutral or beneficial impacts for 

PHMA populations or if they represent additional habitat loss or fragmentation.

Treatments to enhance sagebrush/grasslands habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse would 

be evaluated based upon habitat quality and the functionality/use of treated habitats 

post-treatment.

The BLM would work collaboratively with partners at the state and local levels to 

maintain and enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitats.

Seasonal restrictions would be applied, as needed, for implementing fuels management 

treatments according to the type of seasonal habitat present.
234 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and Lease 

Stipulations, including Exception, Modification, and 

Waiver Criteria

Processing Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers September 2015

Stipulation Type CSU

RMP Acres Affected All PHMAs – 1,021,583 acres

Stipulation Description Controlled Surface Use (CSU). (1) Surface occupancy or use will be restricted to 

no more than an average of one disturbance location per 640 acres using the DDCT,

and the cumulative value of all applicable surface disturbances, existing or future,

must not exceed 5 percent of the DDCT area, as described in the Disturbance Density

Calculation Tool manual (DDCT); (2) as mapped on the Worland Field Office GIS

database; (3) To protect Greater Sage-Grouse designated PHMA (Core only) from

habitat fragmentation and loss.

This lease does not guarantee the lessee the right to occupy the surface of the lease for

the purpose of producing oil and natural gas within Greater Sage-Grouse designated 

PHMAs (Core only). The surface occupancy restriction criteria identified in this 

stipulation may preclude surface occupancy and may be beyond the ability of the 

lessee to meet due to existing surface disturbance on Federal, State, or private lands 

within designated PHMAs (Core only) or surface disturbance created by other land 

users. The BLM may require the lessee or operator to enter into a unit agreement or 

drilling easement to facilitate the equitable development of this and surrounding leases.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmental record

of review determines that, the action, as proposed or conditioned, would not impair 

the function or utility of the site for the current or subsequent seasonal habitat, life 

history, or behavioral needs of Greater Sage-Grouse. The BLM can and does grant 

exceptions if the BLM, in coordination with the WGFD, determines that granting an 

exception would not adversely impact the population being protected.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the area subject to the stipulation or

surface occupancy criteria if an environmental record of review finds that a portion 

of the CSU area is nonessential, or it is identified through scientific research or

monitoring that the existing criteria are inadequate or overly protective for maintaining

the function or utility of the site for the seasonal habitat, life-history, or behavioral

needs of the Greater Sage-Grouse, including (but not limited to) reproductive display,

daytime loafing/staging activities, and nesting.

Waiver: No Waiver

Record Number 4118

Protected Resource Special Status Species: Nesting Raptors

Decision Text To protect nesting raptors, apply a TLS on 83,940 acres to prohibit surface-disturbing 

and disruptive activities within:

● 1⁄4 mile of active raptor nests and 1⁄2 mile of active golden eagle, bald eagle, 

northern goshawk, merlin, and prairie and peregrine falcon nests during specific 

species nesting period or until young birds have fledged (Map 3-17). See 

Appendix N, Seasonal Raptor Stipulations for All Surface-Disturbing and

Disruptive Activities (p. 561) for species nesting periods.

● 1 mile of active ferruginous hawk nests from March 1 to July 31 or until young 

birds have fledged (Map 3-17).

Actual distances and dates will vary based on topography, species, season of use, and 

other pertinent factors.

Stipulation Type TLS

RMP Acres Affected 83,940 acres
Worland Approved RMP 235

Stipulation Description Timing Limitation Stipulation (TLS). No surface use is allowed within 1⁄4 mile of 

active raptor nests and 1⁄2 mile of active golden eagle, bald eagle, northern goshawk, 

merlin, and prairie and peregrine falcon nests and 1 mile of active ferruginous hawk 

nests during specific species nesting period or until young birds have fledged. This 

stipulation does not apply to operation and maintenance of production facilities.

Timing Limitation Stipulation (1) during the following time periods:

● American Kestrel April 1 – August 15

● Bald Eagle January 1 – August 15

● Boreal Owl February 1 – July 31

● Burrowing Owl April 1 – September 15

● Common Barn Owl February 1 – September 15

● Cooper's Hawk March 15 – August 31

● Eastern Screech-owl March 1 – August 15

● Ferruginous Hawk March 15 – July 31

● Golden Eagle January 15 – July 31

● Great Gray Owl March 15 – August 31

● Great Horned Owl December 1 – September 31

● Long-eared Owl February 1 – August 15

● Merlin April 1 – August 15

● Northern Goshawk April 1 – August 15

● Northern Harrier April 1 – August 15

● Northern Pygmy-Owl April 1 – August 1 

● Northern Saw-whet Owl March 1 – August 31

● Osprey April 1 – August 31

● Peregrine Falcon March 1 – August 15

● Prairie Falcon March 1 – August 15

● Red-tailed Hawk February 1 – August 15

● Sharp-shinned Hawk March 15 – August 31

● Short-eared Owl March 15 – August 1 

● Swainson's Hawk April 1 – August 31

● Western Screech-owl March 1 – August 15

● All other raptors February 1 – July 31

(2) as on the Worland Field Office GIS database or as determined by field evaluation; 

(3) protecting active raptor nests.

Exception: The BLM authorized officer may grant an exception if it is determined 

that the raptor nest(s) are not active or the proposed action is of a scale, sited in a 

location, or otherwise designed so that the proposed action would not disturb (be 

likely to cause: physical injury; a decrease in productivity by substantially interfering 

with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior; or nest abandonment, by 

substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior) nesting 

raptors of conservation concern. The determination may include consultation with 

the WGFD or USFWS.

Modification: The BLM authorized officer may modify the area subject to the 

stipulations based upon a BLM evaluation in coordination with WGFD and/or 

USFWS, as necessary. The stipulation may be modified based on negative or positive 

monitoring results; or if it is determined that the action will not impair the function or 

the suitability of the habitat, or cause nest abandonment.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the BLM authorized officer determines 

that the entire lease area does not include seasonal buffer zones for nests of raptor 

species of conservation concern. This determination shall be based upon field studies 

of the area by a qualified representative and subject to confirmation from BLM, in 

coordination with the WGFD and/or USFWS, as necessary.

Record Number 4118

Protected Resource Special Status Species: 1⁄4 mile from raptor nest sites
236 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and Lease 

Stipulations, including Exception, Modification, and 

Waiver Criteria

Processing Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers September 2015

Decision Text To protect the actual nest site, apply a year-round CSU stipulation within 1⁄4 mile of all 

raptor nests (32,197 acres) (Map 3-17).

Actual distances and dates will vary based on topography, species, season of use, and 

other pertinent factors.

Stipulation Type CSU

RMP Acres Affected 32,197 acres

Stipulation Description Controlled Surface Use (CSU). Surface occupancy or use within 1⁄4 mile of raptor nest 

sites will be restricted. (1) Prior to surface disturbance within 1⁄4 mile of raptor nests a 

mitigation plan must be submitted to the BLM by the applicant as a component of 

the Application for Permit to Drill (BLM Form 3160-3) or Sundry Notice (BLM 

Form 3160-5) – Surface Use Plan of Operations. The operator may not initiate 

surface-disturbing activities unless the BLM authorized officer has approved the plan 

or approved it with conditions. The plan must demonstrate to the BLM authorized 

officer’s satisfaction that nesting raptors of conservation concern would not be agitated 

or bothered to a degree that causes or is likely to cause:

● physical injury;

● a decrease in productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering behavior; or

● nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering behavior, or preclude nest reoccupation;

(2) as mapped on the Worland Field Office GIS database or determined by BLM field 

evaluation; (3) protecting raptor nest sites.

Exception: The BLM authorized officer may grant an exception if a staff review 

determines that the proposed action is of a scale, sited in a location, or otherwise 

designed so that the proposed action would not result in a failure to meet the 

performance standards above. The determination may include coordination with the 

WGFD and/or USFWS.

Modification: A modification may be granted if the BLM authorized officer 

determines that portions of the leasehold can be occupied without adversely affecting 

the nest site or suitable nesting habitat, based on topography, species, season of use, 

and other pertinent factors. The determination may include coordination with the 

WGFD and/or USFWS.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the BLM authorized officer determines that 

the entire lease area is not within 1⁄4 mile of a raptor nest or suitable nesting habitat. 

This determination shall be based upon a field evaluation of the area by a qualified 

representative and subject to confirmation from the BLM. Confirmation may include 

coordination with the WGFD and/or USFWS.

Record Number 4128

Protected Resource Surface Water: Riparian habitat supporting special status fish species

Decision Text Prohibit surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet and avoid surface-disturbing 

activities within 1⁄4 mile of perennial surface water and riparian/wetland areas except 

when their impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level.

Stipulation Type CSU

RMP Acres Affected 143,836 acres
Worland Approved RMP 237

Stipulation Description Controlled Surface Use (CSU). Surface occupancy or use within 1⁄4 mile of perennial 

surface water, and riparian/wetland areas will be restricted where determined to 

support special status fish species. (1) Prior to surface disturbance within 1⁄4 mile of 

perennial surface water, and riparian/wetland areas where determined to support 

special status fish species, a site-specific plan must be submitted to the BLM by the 

applicant as a component of the Application for Permit to Drill (BLM Form 3160-3) or 

Sundry Notice (BLM Form 3160-5) – Surface Use Plan of Operations. The operator 

shall not initiate surface-disturbing activities unless the BLM authorized officer has 

approved the plan (with conditions, as appropriate). The plan must demonstrate to 

the BLM authorized officer’s satisfaction how the operator will meet the following 

performance standards:

● Prevent contamination of soil and groundwater.

● Upland sites are protected from storm water runoff using proper erosion and 

sediment control techniques.

● Stabilization of channel crossings.

(2) as mapped on the Worland Field Office GIS datase; (3) to protect perennial surface 

water, and riparian/wetland areas.

Exception: An exception may be granted by the authorized officer if the operator 

submits a plan that demonstrates that impacts from the proposed action can be fully 

mitigated or there are not practical alternatives.

Modification: Consider modifications if it is determined the proposed project is not 

located within 1⁄4 mile of perennial surface waters and riparian/wetland areas.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if the authorized officer determines that the 

entire leasehold can be occupied without adversely affecting riparian resources.

Record Number 4128

Protected Resource Surface Water: Riparian habitat supporting special status fish species

Decision Text Prohibit surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet and avoid surface-disturbing 

activities within 1⁄4 mile of perennial surface water and riparian/wetland areas except 

when their impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level.

Stipulation Type NSO

RMP Acres Affected 61,009 acres

Stipulation Description No surface occupancy (NSO). No surface occupancy (1) within 500 feet of 

perennial surface water, riparian/wetland areas, and playas; (2) as mapped on 

the Worland Field Office GIS database.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if, based upon an 

evaluation by the BLM, it is determined that the proposal would not adversely affect 

perennial surface waters, riparian/wetland areas and/or playas.

Modification: The authorized officer may modify the area subject to the stipulation 

if, based upon an evaluation by the BLM, it is determined that portion of the lease is 

not located within 500 feet of perennial surface waters, riparian/wetland areasand/or 

playas or if impacts can be adequately mitigated.

Waiver: The authorized officer may grant a waiver if it is determined that the entire 

lease area is not within 500 feet of perennial surface waters, riparian/wetland areas 

and/or playas. This determination will be based upon an evaluation by the BLM.

Record Number 4148

Protected Resource Wild Horses: Fifteenmile HMA foaling season

Decision Text Apply seasonal restrictions from February 1 to July 31 to prevent foal abandonment or 

jeopardy of wild horse health and welfare, as appropriate, to surface-disturbing and 

disruptive activities in the Fifteenmile HMA.

Stipulation Type TLS

RMP Acres Affected 76,459 acres
238 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and Lease 

Stipulations, including Exception, Modification, and 

Waiver Criteria

Processing Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers September 2015

Stipulation Description Timing Limitation Stipulation (TLS). No surface use is allowed (1) Feb. 1 to July 31;

(2) within Fifteenmile HMA as mapped on the Worland Field Office GIS database; (3) 

protecting Fifteenmile HMA foaling season.

Exception: The BLM authorized officer may grant an exception the BLM determines 

the area is not likely to be occupied during the period of concern and the operator 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable

or can be adequately mitigated.

Modification: The BLM authorized officer may modify the area subject to the 

stipulations based upon BLM determination that suitable foaling range is not present 

or boundaries of the HMA have changed.

Waiver: The BLM authorized officer may grant a waiver if it is determined that the 

entire lease area is not within the HMA, or is not located within suitable foaling range.

Record Number 5014

Protected Resource Cultural Resources: Legend Rock Petroglyph Site

Decision Text Apply an NSO restriction on the Legend Rock Petroglyph Site.

Stipulation Type NSO

RMP Acres Affected 1,107 acres

Stipulation Description No Surface Occupancy (NSO) (1) within the designated Legend Rock Petroglyph 

site as mapped on the Worland Field Office GIS database; (2) for the protection of 

cultural resources.

Exception: The BLM authorized officer may grant an exception if, after consultation 

with Native American tribes and SHPO, it is determined that the proposed action will 

result in a no adverse effect determination to the sacred, spiritual, and/or traditional 

nature of the property(s).

Modification: This stipulation may be modified by the BLM authorized officer if, in 

consultation with Native American tribes and SHPO, the site is no longer considered 

eligible for NRHP or if, in consultation with Native American tribes and SHPO, it is 

determined that the identified property’s sacred, spiritual, and/or traditional values 

have been downgraded and/or the tribes have reduced the previous avoidance distance 

around the site.

Waiver: The BLM authorized officer may grant a waiver if it is determined, in 

consultation with Native American tribes and SHPO, that the identified site is no 

longer considered sacred, spiritual, and/or traditional.

Record Number 5020

Protected Resource Cultural Resources: Foreground of important cultural sites (defined in Glossary) up 

to 3 miles or the visual horizon

Decision Text Protect the foreground of important cultural sites (see Glossary for definitions of these 

terms) up to 3 miles or the visual horizon whichever is closer (the SCZ) where setting 

is an important aspect of the integrity for the site. Use BMPs (Appendix C, Required

Design Features and Best Management Practices (p. 249)) to avoid, minimize and/or 

compensate adverse effects.

Stipulation Type CSU

RMP Acres Affected As determined by the BLM on a site-specific basis.
Worland Approved RMP 239

Stipulation Description Controlled Surface Use (CSU). (1) Prior to surface disturbance within 3-mile or the 

visual horizon of important cultural sites, whichever is closer, a site-specific plan must 

be submitted to the BLM by the applicant as a component of the Application for 

Permit to Drill (BLM Form 3160-3) or Sundry Notice (BLM Form 3160-4) – Surface 

Use Plan of Operations. The operator shall not initiate surface-disturbing activities 

unless the BLM authorized officer, in consultation with appropriate Native American 

tribes and the SHPO, has approved the plan (with conditions, as appropriate). The 

plan must demonstrate to the BLM authorized officer’s satisfaction how the operator 

will meet the following performance standards:

● There will be no adverse effects to NRHP eligible or listed historic properties

(2) as mapped on the Worland Field Office GIS database; (3) protecting cultural and 

scenic values of important cultural sites.

Exception: The BLM authorized officer may grant an exception if, after consultation 

with Native American tribes and/or SHPO, it is determined that the proposed action 

will result in a no adverse effect determination to the cultural property(s).

Modification: This stipulation may be modified by the BLM authorized officer 

if, in consultation with Native American tribes and/or SHPO, the site is no longer

considered eligible for NRHP or if, in consultation with Native American tribes and/or 

SHPO, it is determined that the identified property’s important values have been 

downgraded and/or the tribes have reduced the previous avoidance distance around 

the site.

Waiver: The BLM authorized officer may grant a waiver if it is determined, in 

consultation with Native American tribes and/or SHPO, that the identified cultural site 

is no longer considered or managed as an important cultural site.

Record Number 5048

Protected Resource VRM: Class II

Decision Text Allow surface-disturbing activities in areas managed as VRM Class II only if the level 

of change to the landscape from the activities are low, and will not attract the attention 

of the casual observer, or the project can be mitigated to meet these objectives.

Stipulation Type CSU

RMP Acres Affected 662,189 acres
240 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and Lease 

Stipulations, including Exception, Modification, and 

Waiver Criteria

Processing Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers September 2015

Stipulation Description Controlled Surface Use (CSU). Surface occupancy or use will be restricted within 

Class I and/or Class II VRM areas. (1) Prior to surface disturbance within Visual 

Resource Management Class I and/or II areas, a site-specific plan must be submitted 

to the BLM by the applicant as a component of the Application for Permit to Drill 

(BLM Form 3160-3) or Sundry Notice (BLM Form 3160-5) – Surface Use Plan of 

Operations. The operator shall not initiate surface-disturbing activities unless the 

BLM authorized officer has approved the plan (with conditions, as appropriate). The 

plan must demonstrate to the BLM authorized officer’s satisfaction how the operator 

will meet the following performance standards:

● A visual contrast rating must demonstrate that VRM Class I and/or II objectives 

will be met.

● Where required by the BLM authorized officer, a visual simulation must be 

prepared and must demonstrate that VRM Class I and/or II objectives will be met 

through practices such as siting of permanent facilities.

● Where present and feasible, existing surface disturbances shall be utilized; new 

surface disturbances shall be minimized to the extent practicable.

● All permanent above-ground facilities (such as production tanks or other 

production facilities) not having specific coloration requirements for safetymust 

be painted or designed using a BLM-approved color.

(2) as mapped in the Worland Field Office GIS database; (3) protecting Class II Visual 

Resource Management Areas.

Exception: The BLM authorized officer may grant an exception if it is demonstrated 

through a BLM-approved visual simulation and contrast rating worksheet that the 

project or identified mitigation will meet or exceed VRM Class I or II objectives. This 

restriction does not apply to temporary structures such as drilling rigs.

Modification: The BLM authorized officer may modify the area subject to the 

stipulation if it is demonstrated that VRM Class I or II objectives have been modified 

through appropriate RMP planning procedures, or if a portion of the lease is not 

located within a VRM Class II area.

Waiver: The BLM authorized officer may grant a waiver if it is determined that the 

entire leasehold is no longer managed for VRM Class I or II objectives based on 

planning, or if the entire leasehold is not located within a Class I or II area.

Record Number 6059

Protected Resource Recreational Resources: Campgrounds, trailheads, day use areas, and similar 

recreation sites

Decision Text Apply an NSO restriction at the time of lease offering on the following:

● Areas within 1⁄4 mile of campgrounds, trailheads, day use areas, and similar 

recreational sites.

At the time of APD submittal, apply a CSU stipulation (site-specific relocation) if the 

lease does not contain an NSO restriction under other resource management on:

● Developed (and future) recreation sites,

● To mapped (and future) national/regional trails,

● Local system trails that connect communities.

Stipulation Type NSO

RMP Acres Affected N/A
Worland Approved RMP 241

Stipulation Description No surface occupancy (NSO). No surface occupancy or use is permitted (1) on 

developed recreation sites (2) for the protection of designated campgrounds, 

trailheads, day use areas, and similar recreation sites.

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the BLM authorized 

officer if the BLM determines that the function and utility of the recreational resources 

are not adversely affected.

Modification: The BLM authorized officer may modify the stipulation if the 

boundaries of recreational sites are changed or a portion of the lease area is determined 

not to be located within a designated recreational site.

Waiver: This BLM authorized officer may waive this stipulation if it is determined 

that the entire leasehold no longer contains developed recreation areas.

Record Number 6069

Protected Resource Scenic and Recreational Resources: Absaroka Mountain Foothills SRMA and 

Absaroka ERMA.

Decision Text Apply a CSU stipulation on the Absaroka Mountain Foothills SRMA and Absaroka 

ERMA.

Stipulation Type CSU

RMP Acres Affected 71,705 acres

Stipulation Description Controlled Surface Use (CSU). Surface occupancy or use will be restricted within the 

Absaroka Mountain Foothills SRMA and Absaroka ERMA (1) unless the operator 

and surface managing agency arrive at an acceptable plan for mitigation of anticipated 

impacts;

The Plan must demonstrate to the authorized officer’s satisfaction that the proposed 

action is consistent with the prescribed management for the SRMA.(2) as mapped 

on the Worland Field Office GIS database; (3) protecting Scenic and Recreational 

Resources and ensuring the recreational opportunities and setting of the SRMA.

Exception: Consider exceptions if exploration and development would not impair 

identified scenic and primitive or semi primitive recreational resources.

Modification: The stipulated area may be modified by the authorized officer if the 

boundaries of the Absaroka Mountain Foothills SRMA or Absaroka ERMA are 

changed.

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if the lease is not located within the Absaroka 

Mountain Foothills SRMA or Absaroka ERMA.

Record Number 6077

Protected Resource Scenic and Recreational Resources: Areas within the Bighorn River ERMA

Decision Text Apply an NSO restriction on lands within the Bighorn River ERMA.

Stipulation Type NSO

RMP Acres Affected 1,489 acres

Stipulation Description No surface occupancy (NSO). No surface occupancy is permitted (1) on lands within 

the Bighorn River ERMA (2) protecting the Bighorn River ERMA.

Exception: Consider exceptions if exploration and development would not impair 

identified scenic and primitive or semi primitive recreational resources. Any changes 

to this stipulation will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or the 

regulatory provisions for such changes.

Modification: The stipulated area may be modified by the authorized officer if the 

boundaries of the Bighorn River ERMA are changed. Any changes to this stipulation 

will be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or the regulatory provisions 

for such changes.

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if the lease is not located within the Bighorn 

River ERMA.

Record Number 6098
242 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and Lease 

Stipulations, including Exception, Modification, and 

Waiver Criteria

Processing Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers September 2015

Protected Resource Scenic and Recreational Resources: Tatman Mountain RMZ

Decision Text Apply a CSU stipulation on the Tatman Mountain RMZ.

Stipulation Type CSU

RMP Acres Affected 49,388 acres

Stipulation Description Controlled Surface Use (CSU). Surface occupancy or use will be restricted or 

prohibited within the Tatman Mountain RMZ (1) unless the operator and surface 

managing agency arrive at an acceptable plan for mitigation of anticipated impacts;

The Plan must demonstrate to the authorized officer’s satisfaction that the proposed 

action is consistent with the prescribed management for the SRMA. (2) as mapped 

on the Worland Field Office GIS database; (3) protecting Scenic and Recreational 

Resources and ensuring the recreational opportunities and setting of the SRMA.

Exception: Consider exceptions if exploration and development would not impair 

identified scenic and primitive or semi primitive recreational resources.

Modification: The stipulated area may be modified by the authorized officer if the 

boundaries of the Tatman Mountain RMZ are changed.

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if the lease is not located within the Tatman 

Mountain RMZ.

Record Number 6108

Protected Resource Scenic and Recreational Resources: Canyons RMZ

Decision Text Apply a CSU stipulation on the Trapper Creek area of the Canyons RMZ.

Stipulation Type CSU

RMP Acres Affected 3,324 acres

Stipulation Description Controlled Surface Use (CSU). Surface occupancy or use will be restricted or 

prohibited within the Trapper Creek Area of the Canyons RMZ (1) unless the operator 

and surface managing agency arrive at an acceptable plan for mitigation of anticipated 

impacts;

The Plan must demonstrate to the authorized officer’s satisfaction that the proposed 

action is consistent with the prescribed management for the SRMA.(2) as mapped 

on the Worland Field Office GIS database; (3) protecting Scenic and Recreational 

Resources and ensuring the recreational opportunities and setting of the SRMA.

Exception: Consider exceptions if exploration and development would not impair 

identified scenic and primitive or semi primitive recreational resources.

Modification: The stipulated area may be modified by the authorized officer if the 

boundaries of the Canyons RMZ are changed.

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if the lease is not located within the Canyons RMZ.

Record Number 6129

Protected Resource Scenic and Recreational Resources: Brokenback/Logging Road RMZ

Decision Text Apply a CSU stipulation on the Brokenback/Logging Road RMZ.

Stipulation Type CSU

RMP Acres Affected 49,449 acres
Worland Approved RMP 243

Stipulation Description Controlled Surface Use (CSU). Surface occupancy or use will be restricted or 

prohibited within the Brokenback/Logging Road RMZ (1) unless the operator and 

surface managing agency arrive at an acceptable plan for mitigation of anticipated 

impacts;

The Plan must demonstrate to the authorized officer’s satisfaction that the proposed 

action is consistent with the prescribed management for the SRMA.(2) as mapped 

on the Worland Field Office GIS database; (3) protecting Scenic and Recreational 

Resources and ensuring the recreational opportunities and setting of the SRMA.

Exception: Consider exceptions if exploration and development would not impair 

identified scenic and primitive or semi primitive recreational resources.

Modification: The stipulated area may be modified by the authorized officer if the 

boundaries of the Brokenback/Logging Road RMZ are changed.

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if the lease is not located within the 

Brokenback/Logging Road RMZ.

Record Number 6140

Protected Resource Scenic and Recreational Resources: Middle Fork of the Powder River SRMA

Decision Text Apply a CSU stipulation on the Middle Fork of the Powder River SRMA.

Review mineral leases on a case-by-case basis and apply mitigation through activity 

level planning in the Southern Bighorns ERMA.

Stipulation Type CSU

RMP Acres Affected 13,368 acres

Stipulation Description Controlled Surface Use (CSU). Surface occupancy or use will be restricted or 

prohibited within the Middle Fork of the Powder River SRMA (1) unless the operator 

and surface managing agency arrive at an acceptable plan for mitigation of anticipated 

impacts;

The Plan must demonstrate to the authorized officer’s satisfaction that the proposed 

action is consistent with the prescribed management for the SRMA. (2) as mapped 

on the Worland Field Office GIS database; (3) protecting Scenic and Recreational 

Resources and ensuring the recreational opportunities and setting of the SRMA.

Exception: Consider exceptions if exploration and development would not impair 

identified scenic and primitive or semi primitive recreational resources.

Modification: The stipulated area may be modified by the authorized officer if the 

boundaries of the Middle Fork of the Powder River SRMA are changed.

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if the lease is not located within the Middle Fork 

of the Powder River SRMA.

Record Number 6151

Protected Resource Scenic and Recreational Resources: Canyon Creek SRMA

Decision Text Apply a CSU stipulation on the Canyon Creek SRMA.

Stipulation Type CSU

RMP Acres Affected 3,679 acres
244 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and Lease 

Stipulations, including Exception, Modification, and 

Waiver Criteria

Processing Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers September 2015

Stipulation Description Controlled Surface Use (CSU). Surface occupancy or use will be restricted or 

prohibited within the Canyon Creek SRMA (1) unless the operator and surface 

managing agency arrive at an acceptable plan for mitigation of anticipated impacts;

The Plan must demonstrate to the authorized officer’s satisfaction that the proposed 

action is consistent with the prescribed management for the SRMA. (2) as mapped 

on the Worland Field Office GIS database; (3) protecting Scenic and Recreational 

Resources and ensuring the recreational opportunities and setting of the SRMA.

Exception: Consider exceptions if exploration and development would not impair 

identified scenic and primitive or semi primitive recreational resources.

Modification: The stipulated area may be modified by the authorized officer if the 

boundaries of the Canyon Creek SRMA are changed.

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if the lease is not located within the Canyon 

Creek SRMA.

Record Number 6168

Protected Resource Recreational Resources: Basin Gardens Play Area SRMA

Decision Text Apply a CSU stipulation on the Basin Gardens Play Area SRMA.

Stipulation Type CSU

RMP Acres Affected 4,426 acres

Stipulation Description Controlled Surface Use (CSU). Surface occupancy or use will be restricted or 

prohibited within the Basin Gardens Play Area RMZ (1) unless the operator and 

surface managing agency arrive at an acceptable plan for mitigation of anticipated 

impacts; The Plan must demonstrate to the authorized officer’s satisfaction that the 

proposed action is consistent with the prescribed management for the SRMA. (2) 

as mapped on the Worland Field Office GIS database; (3) protecting Recreational 

Resources and ensuring the recreational opportunities and setting of the SRMA.

Exception: Consider exceptions if exploration and development would not impair 

identified scenic and primitive or semi primitive recreational resources.

Modification: The stipulated area may be modified by the authorized officer if the 

boundaries of the Basin Gardens Play Area RMZ are changed.

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if the lease is not located within the Basin Gardens 

Play Area RMZ.

Record Number 6186

Protected Resource Recreational Resources: Horse Pasture SRMA.

Decision Text Apply a CSU stipulation on the Horse Pasture SRMA.

Stipulation Type CSU

RMP Acres Affected 144 acres

Stipulation Description Controlled Surface Use (CSU). Surface occupancy or use will be restricted or 

prohibited within the Horse Pasture SRMA (1) unless the operator and surface 

managing agency arrive at an acceptable plan for mitigation of anticipated impacts; 

The Plan must demonstrate to the authorized officer’s satisfaction that the proposed 

action is consistent with the prescribed management for the SRMA. (2) as mapped on 

the Worland Field Office GIS database; (3) protecting Recreational Resources and 

ensuring the recreational opportunities and setting of the SRMA.

Exception: Consider exceptions if exploration and development would not impair 

identified scenic and primitive or semi primitive recreational resources.

Modification: The stipulated area may be modified by the authorized officer if the 

boundaries of the Horse Pasture SRMA are changed.

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if the lease is not located within the Horse Pasture 

SRMA.

Record Number 7007
Worland Approved RMP 245

Protected Resource Special Designations (Paleontological Resources): Fossil concentration area in the 

Big Cedar Ridge ACEC

Decision Text Apply an NSO in the Big Cedar Ridge ACEC.

Stipulation Type NSO

RMP Acres Affected 264 acres

Stipulation Description No surface occupancy (NSO). No surface occupancy is permitted (1) on the

264-acre fossil concentration area in the Big Cedar Ridge ACEC (2) protection of 

paleontological resources.

Exception: An exception to this restriction or stipulation may be granted by the 

authorized officer, if the operator submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the 

proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated.

Modification: The stipulated area may be modified by the authorized officer if the 

Big Cedar Ridge ACEC boundaries are changed.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if the authorized officer determines that the 

entire leasehold is no longer within a designated ACEC.

Record Number 7021

Protected Resource Special Designations (Paleontological Resources): Sundance Formation of the Red 

Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite ACEC

Decision Text Apply an NSO restriction for mineral leasing, exploration, and development on 

BLM-administered lands in the Sundance Formation of the Red Gulch Dinosaur 

Tracksite ACEC.

Stipulation Type NSO

RMP Acres Affected 1,798 acres

Stipulation Description No surface occupancy (NSO). No surface occupancy is permitted (1) within 

Sundance Formation of the Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite ACEC (2) protection of 

paleontological resources.

Exception: An exception to this restriction or stipulation may be granted by the 

authorized officer, if the operator submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the 

proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated.

Modification: The stipulated area may be modified by the authorized officer if the 

Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite ACEC boundaries are changed.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if the authorized officer determines that the 

entire leasehold is no longer within designated ACEC.

Record Number 7044

Protected Resource Special Designations (Scenic and Cultural Resources): Up to 2 miles from Other 

Trails

Decision Text Protect the foreground of Historic Trails (defined in Glossary) up to 2 miles or the 

visual horizon within contributing portion of the trail whichever is closer (the SCZ) 

where setting is an important aspect of the integrity for the trail. The 2 mile buffer 

would also apply to areas unevaluated, until it is determined that setting is not an 

important aspect of the integrity of the trail. Use BMPs (Appendix C, Required

Design Features and Best Management Practices (p. 249)) to avoid, minimize 

and/or compensate adverse effects.

Stipulation Type CSU

RMP Acres Affected 169,184
246 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and Lease 

Stipulations, including Exception, Modification, and 

Waiver Criteria

Processing Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers September 2015

Stipulation Description Controlled Surface Use (CSU). Surface occupancy or use will be restricted or 

prohibited up to 2 miles where setting is an important aspect of the integrity for the 

trail. (1) unless the operator and surface managing agency arrive at an acceptable 

plan for mitigation of anticipated impacts; The Plan must demonstrate proposed 

infrastructure is either not visible or will result in a weak contrast rating.(2) as mapped 

on the Worland Field Office GIS database; (3) protecting other historic trails.

Exception: The authorized officer may grant an exception if surveys determine that 

other historic trail remnants are not present or it is determined that the section of trail is 

sufficiently compromised that the action will not result in an adverse effect to the trail.

Modification: If surveys determine that a portion of the lease area does not contain 

contributing trail segments, then the stipulation may be modified. This determination 

shall be based upon field evaluation of the area by a qualified archaeologist/historian 

and subject to confirmation by the BLM.

Waiver: The authorized officer may grant a waiver if surveys determine that the 

entire lease area does not contain contributing trail segments. This determination 

shall be based upon field evaluation of the area by a qualified archaeologist/historian 

and subject to confirmation by the BLM.

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern NSO No Surface Occupancy

APD Application for Permit to Drill PHMAs Priority Habitat Management Areas

BLM Bureau of Land Management RAMP Recreation Area Management Plan

BMP Best Management Practice RMZ Recreation Management Zone

CSU Controlled Surface Use SCZ Setting Consideration Zone

BA Decibels with an A-weighted scale SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

ERMA Extensive Recreation Management Area SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

GIS Geographic Information System TLS Timing Limitation Stipulation

HMA Herd Management Area USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

HMP Habitat Management Plan USFS United States Forest Service

LRP Limited Reclamation Potential VRM Visual Resource Management

MLP Master Leasing Plan WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department

NHT National Historic Trail WHMA Wildlife Habitat ManagementArea 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

B.3. Processing Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers

An exception, waiver, or modification must be based on one of two criteria. According to 43 CFR 

3101.1-4, “A stipulation included in an oil and gas lease shall be subject to modification or waiver 

only if the authorized officer determines that the factors leading to its inclusion in the lease have 

changed sufficiently to make the protection provided by the stipulation no longer justified or if the 

proposed operations would not cause unacceptable impacts.” Waiver, exceptions, or modifications 

must be supported by appropriate environmental analysis and documentation.

The person requesting the exception, modification, or waiver is responsible to submit a written 

request including information that might assist the authorized official in making a decision. The 

authorized officer will review the information submitted in support of the request along with other 

pertinent information. Requests must be submitted to the BLM field office in which the lease is 

located. Modification and waiver requests will be forwarded to the BLM-Wyoming Deputy State 

Director for Minerals and Lands along with the Field Office’s recommendation. Requests shall be 

subject to at least a 30-day public review if the authorized officer determines that a stipulation 

involves an issue of major concern to the public (43 CFR 3101.1-4).

The request is considered a unique action and is analyzed and documented individually for RMP 

and NEPA compliance. Processing may include coordination or consultation with the Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department (WGFD), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), State Historic 

Preservation Office, or other agencies. For example, requests will not be granted for stipulations 
Worland Approved RMP 247

designed to protect Threatened and Endangered species, unless the BLM consults with the 

USFWS and reinitiates consultation, if necessary. Consultation with other agencies requires 

additional time and resources to process. 

The request must include the lease number and effective date, the stipulation(s) the request is for, 

the change in circumstances that lead the lessee or operator to believe the request is appropriate, 

and the name and/or number of any applicable authorization(s) (i.e., application for permit to 

drill, sundry, right-of-way). A map is strongly recommended. The following information must be 

addressed, when applicable, in the written request: 

1. WHY the public land user wants the request. For example with a timing limitation exception 

request, include the reason(s) why an action could not be completed outside of the original 

stipulation period, any evidence of why the action would not adversely affect the resource 

or species being protected, or any other information (additional mitigation measures or 

alternatives) that would help the BLM (and WGFD or USFWS) in reviewing the request.

2. WHO is filing the request. This must include the company name, the name of the contact 

person, and the address, telephone number, e-mail address (if available), and fax number of 

the contact person. 

3. WHAT is being requested. For example with a timing limitation request, include a detailed 

description of the activity including types of equipment or vehicles required and the number 

of trips expected.

4. WHERE the activity would take place. This must include the legal description of the 

activity and a map clearly depicting these areas. Proponent prepared Geographic Information 

System layers meeting BLM requirements can expedite the processing.

5. WHEN the activity would occur and it’s duration. This must include the start date, end date, 

and time of day/night when activities would occur.

Requests must be made in writing and hard copy delivered to the Field Manager at the physical 

address of the office. When time is of the essence, the process may be initiated by fax or 

electronic delivery of a scanned copy but the original must be received by the Field Office within 

three working days. No exception, waiver, or modification will be issued until the hard copy 

request is received.

An exception request must be initiated near the time of the proposed activity. As a general 

rule, the request should be made within two weeks of conducting the proposed activity. The 

unpredictability of weather, animal movement and condition, and so on precludes analysis of 

requests related to wildlife far in advance of the time periods in question. The BLM uses a set of 

criteria when considering an exception request. Professional judgment plays a key part in the 

BLM’s decisions on whether to grant exceptions. There is no clear-cut formula. 

The following example describes some of the factors considered by the BLM when determining 

whether a request for a big game winter range timing limitation exception should be granted. 

Factors Considered 

1. Resource Concern

● Animal presence or absence

● Additional or new resource concerns 

● Potential for increased wildlife accidents or poaching 

2. Animal Conditions 

● Physical condition of individual animals (e.g., fat reserves)

● Local animal population condition (animal density) 

September 2015

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and

Lease Stipulations, including Exception,

Modification, and Waiver Criteria

Processing Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers
248 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and Lease 

Stipulations, including Exception, Modification, and 

Waiver Criteria

Processing Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers September 2015

● Potential for additive mortality

● Likelihood of introduction or increased incidence of disease

● Likelihood of decreased recruitment/natality

3. Climate/Weather

● Snow conditions (depth, crusting, longevity) 

● Current and historic local precipitation patterns

● Current and historical seasonal weather patterns

● Recent and current wind-chill factors (indication of animals energy use)

● Duration of condition 

● Short- and long-range forecasts

4. Habitat Condition and Availability

● Water and forage condition (availability, quality, and quantity) 

● Competition (interspecific, intraspecific)

● Animal use of available forage

● Suitable and ample forage immediately available and accessible

5. Spatial Considerations 

● Migration/travel corridors 

● Winter range, foraging, calving or breeding

● Topography (plains vs. mountains) 

● Topographic/geographic limitations (barriers)

● Presence of thermal cover (e.g., protection from wind) 

● Proportion of range impacted

● Juxtaposition and density of other activities/disturbances in the vicinity 

● Cumulative impacts

6. Timing

● When proposed activity would occur in the stipulation period 

● Kind and duration of potentially disruptive activity

● Likelihood of animals habituating to the proposed activity

A determination will be fully documented in the case file with an appropriate level of 

environmental review after asking not one, but a series of questions, such as: 

● Would the BLM remain in compliance with laws and regulations? 

● Is the proposal in conformance with the objectives of the RMP?

● What would be the level of harm to the protected resource, both locally and regionally? 

● What would be the economic or public safety concerns if an active operation near completion 

was shut in to comply with a seasonal closure? (For example: economic, multi-stage fracturing 

not completed; safety, casing and cementing of fresh water zones not completed.) 

● Are the impacts temporary, rather than long term?

● Is the resource being protected rare, or is it relatively common? Is it a special status species?

● Based on existing knowledge of a species and its use of an area, would impacts be confined 

to single or a small number of individuals, or would there be impacts on local or regional 

populations? 

● Would impacts be allowed under existing law and policy? 

● Is offsite mitigation an appropriate option? (For example, where individual or cumulative 

impacts cannot be effectively mitigated on site?)

● Can the impacts be reduced to an acceptable level through intensive use of environmental 

Best Management Practices?
Worland Approved RMP 249

Appendix C. Required Design Features and 

Best Management Practices

Best management practices (BMPs) are environmental protection measures developed by 

governmental bodies, industry, and scientific or other working groups. BMPs are state-of-the-art 

mitigation measures applied on a site-specific basis to reduce, prevent, or avoid adverse 

environmental or social impacts. These practices are applied to help ensure that development 

is conducted in an environmentally responsible manner. Some BMPs are as simple as choosing 

a paint color that helps oil and natural gas equipment blend with the natural surroundings, 

turning development almost invisible. Other BMPs may reduce the amount of vegetation lost 

to development, may speed the re-growth of vegetation, or may reduce the amount of wildlife 

disturbance in important habitats. Public land users are encouraged to review these practices, 

incorporate them where appropriate, or develop better methods for achieving the same goal.

The purpose of this section is not to select certain practices or designs and require that only those 

be used. It is not possible to evaluate all the known practices and make determinations as to which 

are best. BMPs should be matched and adapted to meet the site-specific requirements of the 

management action, project and local environment. No one management practice is best suited to 

every site or situation. BMPs must be adaptive and monitored regularly to evaluate effectiveness. 

The following sources contain information regarding the development and implementation of 

BMPs. These references are not to be considered as exclusive sources of information; rather, 

they should be used as a starting point when evaluating specific BMPs during project design 

and implementation.

C.1. Bureau of Land Management Best Management Practices 

Resources

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) BMPs: This website provides an introduction 

to BLM BMPs with links to BLM contacts, specific resources, and other BMP 

links, and other resources related to BLM BMPs.

http://www.blm.gov/bmp/

General Information for Oil and Gas BMPs: This resource provides general 

information regarding BLM BMPs for oil and gas development. A sample of 

BMPs are provided with a brief description of types of BMPs and terminology. 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/

general_information.html

BMP Frequently Asked Questions: The link below provides responses to frequently 

asked questions regarding BLM BMPs. 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/

frequently_asked_questions.html

BMP Technical Information: The slide shows at the link below provide a detailed look 

at a menu of possible oil and natural gas development BMPs. These slide shows are 

only a starting point and are not intended to serve as a comprehensive list of BMPs.

Appendix C Required Design Features and

Best Management Practices 

Bureau of Land Management Best Management

September 2015 Practices Resources
250 Worland Approved RMP

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/

technical_information.html

Oil and Gas Exploration – The Gold Book: The publication Surface Operating Standards and 

Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development (commonly referred to as The Gold 

Book) was developed to assist operators by providing information on the requirements for 

obtaining permit approval and conducting environmentally responsible oil and gas operations on 

federal lands and on private surface over federal minerals (split estate). split estate surface owners 

will also find the Gold Book to be a useful reference guide. In 2007, the Gold Book was updated 

to incorporate changes resulting from the new Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 regulations. 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/

gold_book.html

Visual Resources: There are numerous design techniques that can be used to reduce 

the visual impacts from surface-disturbing projects. The techniques described 

here should be used in conjunction with BLM’s visual resource contrast rating 

process wherein both the existing landscape and the proposed development or 

activity are analyzed for their basic elements of form, line, color, and texture. 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/Recreation/recreation_national/RMS/2.html

While written for renewable energy development, Best Management Practices for

Reducing Visual Impacts of Renewable Energy Facilities on BLM-Administered 

Lands (BLM 2013a) provides visual BMPs applicable to many land use activities. 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/renewable_energy.html

Renewable Energy Development BMPs: The following resources provide information on BMPs 

related to renewable energy development.

● Wind Energy Development Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement [EIS]: The 

scope of the Wind Energy Programmatic EIS analysis includes an assessment of the 

positive and negative environmental, social, and economic impacts; discussion of relevant

mitigation measures to address these impacts; and identification of appropriate, programmatic 

policies and BMPs to be included in the proposed Wind Energy Development Program. 

http://windeis.anl.gov/documents/fpeis/index.cfm

● BLM Instruction Memorandum [IM] 2009-043, Rights-of-Way [ROW], Wind 

Energy: This IM further clarifies the BLM Wind Energy Development policies 

and BMPs provided in the Wind Energy Development Programmatic EIS. 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/

national_instruction/2009/IM_2009-043.html

● Record of Decision for the Geothermal Resource Leasing Programmatic EIS:

This Record of Decision (ROD) provides a list of sample BMPs that have been 

collected from various BLM and United States Forest Service documents addressing 

geothermal and fluid mineral leasing and development, including resource management 

plans (RMPs), forest plans, and environmental reports for geothermal leasing and 

development. The document provides guidance on incorporating BMPs, as appropriate, 

into the geothermal permit application or as Conditions of Approval (COAs). 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/

MINERALS REALTY AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/geothermal_eis/

final_programmatic.Par.90935.File.dat/ROD_Geothermal_12-17-08.pdf

Appendix C Required Design Features and Best 

Management Practices

Bureau of Land Management Best Management

Practices Resources September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 251

● Record of Decision for Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS: This ROD 

identifies for the Department of Energy, industry, and stakeholders, the best practices 

for deploying solar energy and ensuring minimal impact to natural and cultural 

resources on BLM-administered lands or other federal, state, tribal, or private lands. 

http://www.solareis.anl.gov/

General Information for Management of Land Boundaries BMPs: The Departmental 

Manual 600 Chapter 5, Standards for Federal Lands Boundary Evidence and 

BLM H-9600-1, Cadastral Survey Handbook, provides general information 

regarding BLM BMPs for management of public land boundaries. Samples of 

BMPs are available with a brief description of types of BMPs and terminology. 

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

C.2. Other Agency BMP Resources

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Best Management Practices Resources

Healthy Watersheds: This resource provides conservation approaches and tools designed to 

ensure healthy watersheds remain intact. The website provides example approaches that are 

generally site-specific, and watershed managers are encouraged to use the examples as guidance 

in developing local conservation strategies. The website also supplies outreach strategies to 

encourage stakeholder engagement in conservation and protection of healthy watersheds. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/

Storm Water BMPs: This online menu provides BMPs designed to meet the minimum 

requirements for six control measures specified by the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA’s) Phase II Stormwater Program. The control measures include 

public education, public involvement, illicit discharge detection and elimination,

construction, post-construction, and pollution prevention/good housekeeping. The menu 

also provides case studies assessing the performance of various storm water BMPs. 

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/swbmp/

Pasture, Rangeland, and Grazing Operations BMPs: The link below provides BMPs 

compiled by the EPA to prevent or reduce pollution associated with livestock grazing. 

Topics include practices to reduce methane production, managing nonpoint source pollution, 

controlled grazing, reducing animal feeding operation pollution, and manure management. 

http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/anprgbmp.html

U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Best Management Practices Resources

National Conservation Practice Standards: This website provides links for national 

conservation practices developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

on topics such as herbaceous wind barriers, feed management, forest stand improvement, 

and irrigation management. The conservation practice standard contains information on why 

and where the practice is applied, and sets forth the minimum quality criteria that must be 

met during the application of that practice in order for it to achieve its intended purpose. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/technical/cp/ncps/

?cid=nrcs143_026849

September 2015

Appendix C Required Design Features and

Best Management Practices 

Other Agency BMP Resources
252 Worland Approved RMP

National Range and Pasture Handbook: Developed by NRCS grazing land specialists, 

this handbook provides a source of expertise to guide cooperators in solving resource 

problems and in sustaining or improving their grazing lands resources and operations. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/landuse/rangepasture/

?cid=stelprdb1043084

Wyoming Game and Fish Department Best Management Practices Resources

Aquatic Invasive Species: This resource provides information about how to 

recognize aquatic invasive species and how to avoid introducing them or spreading 

them through Wyoming's waters. The website contains links to external resources 

including a link to waterbodies in the United States currently known to be impacted 

by zebra and quagga mussels. The website also contains information about how to 

decontaminate equipment and watercraft suspected of harboring aquatic invasive species. 

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Fishing-and-Boating/Aquatic-Invasive-Species-Prevention/AIS-Resources

C.3. Greater Sage-Grouse: Required Design Features and Best 

Management Practices

Introduction

Required Design Features (RDFs) are required for certain activities in Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat. RDFs establish the minimum specifications for certain activities to help mitigate adverse 

impacts. However, the applicability and overall effectiveness of each RDF cannot be fully 

assessed until the project level when the project location and design are known. Because of 

site-specific circumstances, some RDFs may not apply to some projects (e.g., a resource is not 

present on a given site) and/or may require slight variations (e.g., a larger or smaller protective 

area). All variations in RDFs would require that at least one of the following be demonstrated in 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis associated with the project/activity:

● A specific RDF is documented to not be applicable to the site-specific conditions of the 

project/activity (e.g., due to site limitations or engineering considerations). Economic 

considerations, such as increased costs, do not necessarily require that an RDF be varied 

or rendered inapplicable;

● An alternative RDF, a state-implemented conservation measure or plan-level protection is 

determined to provide equal or better protection for Greater Sage-Grouse or its habitat; or 

● A specific RDF will provide no additional protection to Greater Sage-Grouse or itshabitat.

Adverse environmental impacts associated with development can be avoided, reduced, or 

mitigated through the project’s design and implementation. In order to provide regulatory 

certainty that the measures will be incorporated, they must be required of every project. The 

National Technical Team (NTT) report identified management actions and practices that would 

reduce adverse impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse if mandated to development throughout Core 

Area (Priority Habitat Management Areas). Some of these practices are incorporated in the 

Approved Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan as being universally appropriate. The ones 

that could be analyzed on a planning area-wide basis have been made a part of the management 

actions and in this appendix as RDFs. 

Other environmental protection measures could not be analyzed in a resource area-wide 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) because their appropriateness depends upon site-specific

Appendix C Required Design Features and Best 

Management Practices

Greater Sage-Grouse: Required Design Features

and Best Management Practices September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 253

Appendix C Required Design Features and

Best Management Practices 

September 2015 Required Design Features

issues such as proximity to the boundary of Priority Habitat Management Areas or non-crucial 

habitat or engineering or physical limitations such as an oil and gas producing zone being too 

close to the surface to be recoverable through directional drilling. These BMPs are required to be 

considered in a site-specific project’s design to reduce, prevent, or avoid adverse environmental or 

social impacts. These practices are analyzed to help ensure that development is conducted in an 

environmentally responsible manner. Some BMPs are as simple as choosing a paint color that 

helps oil and natural gas equipment blend with the natural surroundings, making development 

less visible. Other BMPs may reduce the amount of vegetation lost to development, improve the 

speed of re-growth of desirable vegetation, or may reduce the amount of wildlife disturbance in 

important habitats. Public land users are encouraged to review these practices, incorporate them 

where appropriate, or develop better methods for achieving the same goal. However, the BLM 

may also require their incorporation into the design features of the project as a Condition of 

Approval (COA). A design feature should only be considered as a potential beneficial impact 

under the NEPA when it is part of a BLM authorization as a COA. If the practice is only voluntary 

or suggested, the BLM lacks the authority to require its implementation, so the project should be 

analyzed as if the practice will not occur. The BLM authorization will make clear whether the 

BMP is mandatory (attached as a COA) or merely encouraged. 

NEPA analysis that concludes that BMPs should not be attached as mandatory COAs needs 

to clearly explain why with relation to site-specific factors. The purpose of this section is not 

to select certain practices or designs and require that only those be used. It is not possible to 

evaluate all the known practices and make determinations as to which are best, particularly 

without a specific project in a specific location. BMPs should be matched and adapted to meet

the site-specific requirements of the management action, project and local environment. No one 

management practice is best suited to every site or situation, or will remain the most optimal 

practice over time. BMPs must be adaptive and monitored regularly to evaluate effectiveness. As 

discussed more fully in the Special Status Species-Wildlife section, protections for the Greater 

Sage-Grouse are an important focal point in the preparation of the Resource Management Plan 

(RMP). Accordingly, a special section of BMPs identifies management that should be considered 

in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat. It is expected that these BMPs will change over time as 

monitoring and further study develop improved Greater Sage-Grouse protections. 

The following design approaches are required for all projects unless the proponent establishes 

that due to site limitations or engineering considerations, the design approaches are infeasible. 

Economic considerations such as increased costs do not render a design infeasible. The following 

measures would be applied as RDFs for all solid minerals. They would also apply to locatable 

minerals subject to valid existing rights and consistent with applicable law.

C.3.1. Required Design Features

The following measures, and others as they are identified, will be required for all BLM-authorized 

development. As appropriate, they may be required as part of the design of the project or as a 

mandatory COA. The following RDFs are found in the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team 

report (Sage-grouse NTT 2011) titled “A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Measures”.

General

1. Evaluate and take advantage of opportunities to remove or modify existing power lines 

within priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat areas. When possible, require perch deterrents
254 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix C Required Design Features and Best 

Management Practices

Required Design Features September 2015

on existing or new overhead facilities. Encourage installation of perch deterrents on existing 

facilities.

2. Where existing leases or rights-of-way (ROWs) have had some level of development (road, 

fence, well, etc.) and are no longer in use, reclaim the site by removing these features and 

restoring the habitat.

3. Locate man camps outside priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitats.

4. Work cooperatively with permittees, leasees, and other landowners to develop grazing 

management strategies that integrate both public and private lands into single management 

units.

5. Coordinate BMPs and vegetative objectives with the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) for consistent application across jurisdictions where the BLM and NRCS 

have the greatest opportunities to benefit Greater Sage-Grouse, particularly as it applies to 

the NRCS’s National Sage-Grouse Initiative: (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/

detail/national/programs/initiatives/?cid=STELDEVB1027671).

6. When conducting NEPA analysis for water developments or other rangeland improvements 

address the direct and indirect effects to Greater Sage-Grouse populations and habitat.

7. Evaluate the role of existing seedings that are currently composed of primarily introduced 

perennial grasses in and adjacent to priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitats to determine if 

they should be restored to sagebrush or habitat of higher quality for Greater Sage-Grouse. 

If these seedings are part of an Allotment Management Plan/Conservation Plan or if they 

provide value in conserving or enhancing the rest of the priority habitats, then no restoration 

would be necessary. Assess the compatibility of these seedings for Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat or as a component of a grazing system during land health assessments. For example, 

some introduced grass seedings are an integral part of a livestock management plan

and reduce grazing pressure in important sagebrush habitats, or serve as a strategic fuels 

management area.

8. Where the federal government owns the surface, and the mineral estate is in non‐federal 

ownership, apply appropriate BMPs to surface development. 

Roads 

1. Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary to accommodate their 

intended purpose. 

2. Locate roads to avoid important areas and habitats.

3. Coordinate road construction and use among federal fluid mineral lessees and ROW or 

Surface Use Agreement (SUA) holders. 

4. Construct road crossings of ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams to minimize 

impacts to the riparian habitat, such as by crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages 

and stream crossings.

5. Establish slow speed limits on BLM and Forest Service system-administered roads or design 

roads for slower vehicle speeds to reduce Greater Sage-Grouse mortality.

6. Establish trip restrictions or minimization through use of telemetry and remote well control 

(e.g., Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition). 

7. Do not issue ROWs or SUAs to counties on energy development roads, unless for a 

temporary use consistent with all other terms and conditions including this document. 

8. Restrict vehicle traffic to only authorized users on newly constructed routes (using signage, 

gates, etc.)

9. Apply dust abatement on roads, well pads, and other surface disturbances.

10. Close and rehabilitate duplicate roads by restoring original landform and establishing a 

desirable plant community.
Worland Approved RMP 255

Appendix C Required Design Features and

Best Management Practices 

September 2015 Required Design Features

11. Do not issue ROWs to counties on newly constructed energy development roads, unless for a 

temporary use consistent with all other terms and conditions included in this document. 

Operations 

1. Site and/or minimize linear ROWs or SUAs to reduce disturbance and fragmentation of 

sagebrush habitats.

2. Place new utility developments (power lines, pipelines, etc.) and transportation routes in 

existing utility or transportation corridors.

3. Bury power lines to the extent technically feasible.

4. Collocate powerlines, flowlines, and small pipelines under or immediately adjacent to 

existing roads/transportation corridors.

5. Cover all fluid-containing pits and open tanks with netting (maximum 1.5-inch mesh size) 

regardless of size to reduce Greater Sage-Grouse mortality.

6. Equip tanks and other above ground facilities with structures or devices that discourage 

nesting and perching of raptors and corvids. 

7. Control the spread and effects of invasive non‐native plant species, including treating weeds 

prior to surface disturbance and washing vehicles and equipment at designated wash stations 

when constructing in areas with weed infestations. 

8. Require Greater Sage-Grouse-safe fences.

9. Clean up refuse.

10. Locate mining camps outside of priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitats.

11. Fit transmission towers with anti-perch devices.

12. Construct Greater Sage-Grouse‐safe fences around sumps. 

13. Cluster disturbances, operations (hydraulic fracture stimulation, liquids gathering, etc.),

and facilities.

14. Use directional and horizontal drilling to the extent feasible as a means to reduce surface 

disturbance in relation to the number of wells.

15. Place infrastructure in already disturbed locations where the habitat has not been fully 

restored.

16. Apply a phased development approach with concurrent reclamation.

17. Place liquid gathering facilities outside priority areas. To reduce truck traffic and perching 

and nesting sites for ravens and raptors do not place tanks at well locations within priority 

habitat areas.

18. Pipelines must be under or immediately adjacent to the road. 

19. Use remote monitoring techniques for production facilities and develop a plan to reduce the 

frequency of vehicle use.

20. Restrict the construction of tall facilities, distribution powerlines, and fences to the minimum 

number and amount needed.

21. Design or site permanent structures to minimize impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse, with 

emphasis on locating and operating facilities that create movement (e.g., pump jacks) or 

attract frequent human use and vehicular traffic (e.g., fluid storage tanks) in a manner that 

will minimize disturbance of Greater Sage-Grouse or interference with habitat use.

22. Use only closed‐loop systems for drilling operations, with no reserve pits.

23. Consider using oak (or other material) mats for drilling activities where topography permits

to reduce vegetation disturbance and for temporary roads between closely-spaced wells to 

reduce soil compaction and maintain soil structure to increase likelihood of vegetation 

reestablishment following drilling.

West Nile
256 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix C Required Design Features and Best 

Management Practices

Required Design Features September 2015

1. Restrict impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate threats from West Nile Virus 

(WNv).

2. Increase the size of freshwater ponds to accommodate a greater volume of water than is 

discharged. This will result in un‐vegetated and muddy shorelines that breeding Cx. tarsalis 

avoid. This modification may reduce Cx. tarsalis habitat but could create larval habitat for 

Culicoides sonorensis, a vector of blue tongue disease, and should be used sparingly. Steep 

shorelines should be used in combination with this technique whenever possible. 

3. Build steep shorelines to reduce shallow water (greater than 60 centimeters [cm]) and aquatic 

vegetation around the perimeter of impoundments. Construction of steep shorelines also will 

create more permanent ponds that are a deterrent to colonizing mosquito species like Cx. 

tarsalis which prefer newly flooded sites with high primary productivity.

4. Maintain water levels below that of rooted vegetation for a muddy shoreline that is 

unfavorable habitat for mosquito larvae. Rooted vegetation includes both aquatic and upland 

vegetative types. Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low lying areas.

Aquatic habitats with a vegetated inflow and outflow separated by open water produce 5 

to 10 fold fewer Culex mosquitoes than completely vegetated wetlands. Wetlands with 

open water also had significantly fewer stage III and IV instars which may be attributed to 

increased predator abundances in open water habitats.

5. Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope seepage or overflow by digging 

ponds in flat areas rather than damming natural draws for effluent water storage, or lining 

constructed ponds in areas where seepage is anticipated.

6. Line channels where discharge water flows into ponds with crushed rock, or use a horizontal 

pipe to discharge inflow directly into existing open water, thus precluding shallow surface 

inflow and accumulation of sediment that promotes aquatic vegetation. 

7. Line the overflow spillway with crushed rock, and construct the spillway with steep sides to 

preclude the accumulation of shallow water and vegetation.

8. Fence pond sites to restrict access by livestock and other wild ungulates that trample and 

disturb shorelines, enrich sediments with manure and create hoof print pockets of water 

that are attractive to breeding mosquitoes. 

9. Manage artificial water impoundments for the prevention and/or spread of WNv where the 

virus poses a threat to Greater Sage-Grouse. This may include but is not limited to: (a) 

the use of larvicides and adulticides to treat waterbodies; (b) overbuilding ponds to create 

non-vegetated, muddy shorelines; (c) building steep shorelines to reduce shallow water and 

emergent aquatic vegetation; (d) maintaining the water level below rooted vegetation; (e) 

avoiding flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low lying areas; (f) constructing 

dams or impoundments that restrict seepage or overflow; (g) lining the channel where

discharge water flows into the pond with crushed rock, or use a horizontal pipe to discharge 

inflow directly into existing open water; (h) lining the overflow spillway with crushed rock 

and construct the spillway with steep sides to preclude the accumulation of shallow water 

and vegetation; and (i) restricting access of ponds to livestock and wildlife. 

10. Field Offices should consider alternate means to manage produced waters that could present 

additional vectors for WNv. Such remedies may include re-injection under an approved 

Underground Injection Control permit, transfer to single/centralized facility, etc.

11. Policy Statement 7 regarding WNv does not apply to naturally occurring waters.

12. Design impoundments for wildlife and/or livestock use to reduce the potential to produce 

vectors for WNv where the virus may pose a threat to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

13. Manage water impoundments to prevent the spread of WNv where analysis shows the virus 

poses a threat to Greater Sage-Grouse and may result in negative impacts to other species of 

concern.
Worland Approved RMP 257

Appendix C Required Design Features and

Best Management Practices 

September 2015 Required Design Features

14. Remove or re-inject produced water to reduce habitat for mosquitoes that vector WNv. If 

surface disposal of produced water continues, use the following steps for reservoir design to 

limit favorable mosquito habitat:

● Overbuild size of ponds for muddy and non-vegetated shorelines. 

● Build steep shorelines to decrease vegetation and increase wave actions.

● Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low lying areas.

● Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope seepage or overflow. 

● Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with crushed rock.

● Construct spillway with steep sides and line it with crushed rock. 

15. Treat waters with larvicides to reduce mosquito production where water occurs on the 

surface.

16. Restrict pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate threats from WNv.

Noise 

1. Limit noise to less than 10 decibels above ambient measures (20 to 24 decibels) at sunriseat 

the perimeter of a lek during active lek season.

2. Require noise shields when drilling during the lek, nesting, brood-rearing, or wintering 

season.

3. Locate new compressor stations outside priority habitats and design them to reduce noise 

that may be directed towards priority habitat.

4. Require Greater Sage-Grouse safe fences.

Reclamation 

1. Include objectives for ensuring habitat restoration to meet Greater Sage-Grouse habitat needs 

in reclamation practices/sites. Address post reclamation management in reclamation plan 

such that goals and objectives are to protect and improve Greater Sage-Grouse habitat needs.

2. Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long‐term access roads and well pads, including 

reshaping, topsoiling, and revegetating cut-and-fill slopes. 

3. Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to the pre‐disturbance landforms and desired 

plant community. 

4. Implement irrigation during interim or final reclamation for sites where establishment 

of seedlings has been shown or is expected to be difficult due to dry conditions. Utilize 

mulching techniques to expedite reclamation.

5. Use mulching, soil amendments, and/or erosion blankets to expedite reclamation and to 

protect soils.

6. Address post reclamation management in reclamation plan such that goals and objectives are 

to protect and improve Greater Sage-Grouse habitat needs.

7. Minimize surface-disturbing or disrupting activities (including operations and maintenance) 

where needed to reduce the impacts of human activities on important seasonal Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitats. Apply these measures during project level planning. 

8. When conducting NEPA analysis for wild horse and burro management activities, 

water developments or other rangeland improvements for wild horses in priority Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat, address (and apply conservation measures as appropriate) the direct 

and indirect effects to Greater Sage-Grouse populations and habitat. 

9. During activity level planning, where appropriate, designate routes with current 

administrative/agency purpose or need to administrative access only.

10. Identify and work with partners to increase native seed availability and work with plant 

material centers to develop new plant materials, especially the forbs needed to restore 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.
258 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix C Required Design Features and Best 

Management Practices

Required Design Features September 2015

11. Consider potential changes in climate when proposing seedings using native plants. Consider 

seed collections from the warmer component within a species’ current range for selection

of native seed.

12. Use Ecological Site Descriptions (ESDs) or other protocols could be used (e.g., TEUI or 

LSI) to identify the understory species and sagebrush subspecies needed to restore desirable 

habitat conditions. 

Vegetation Treatments/Fire and Fuels Management 

1. During vegetation management project design, consider the utility of using livestock to 

strategically reduce fine fuels, and implement grazing management that will accomplish this 

objective. Consult with ecologists to minimize impacts to native perennialgrasses.

2. Provide to personnel planning vegetation treatments information on Greater Sage-Grouse 

biology, habitat requirements, and identification of areas utilized locally. 

3. Use vegetation treatment prescriptions that minimize undesirable effects on vegetation or 

soils (e.g., minimize mortality of desirable plant species and reduce risk of hydrophobicity. 

4. Ensure proposed sagebrush treatments are planned with interdisciplinary input from 

BLM/Forest Service and /or state wildlife agency biologist and that treatment acreage is 

conservative in the context of surrounding Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal habitats and 

landscape.

5. Ensure that treatments are configured in a manner (e.g., strips) that promotes use by Greater 

Sage-Grouse. 

6. Where appropriate, incorporate roads and natural fuels breaks into fuels break design. 

7. Power‐wash all vehicles and equipment involved in vegetation treatment activities prior to 

entering the area to minimize the introduction of undesirable and/or invasive plant species.

8. Design vegetation treatments in areas of high wildfire frequency to facilitate firefighter and 

public safety, reduce the risk of extreme fire behavior; and to reduce the risk and rate of 

fire spread to Greater Sage-Grouse habitats.

9. Restore prior perennial grass/shrub plant communities infested with nonnative invasive 

species to a species composition characterized by perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs as 

outlined in ESDs.

10. Emphasize the use of native plant species, recognizing that nonnative species may be 

necessary depending on the availability of native seed and prevailing site conditions. 

11. Reduce the risk of vehicle or human‐caused wildfires and the spread of invasive species 

into Greater Sage-Grouse habitats could be minimized by planting perennial vegetation 

(e.g., green‐strips) paralleling road ROWs (this BMP could be applied to BLM linear ROW 

authorizations). 

12. Strategically place and maintain pre‐treated strips/areas (e.g., mowing, herbicide application, 

and strictly managed grazed strips) to aid in controlling wildfire should wildfire occur near 

Greater Sage-Grouse key habitats or important restoration areas (such as where investments

in restoration have already been made). 

13. Design vegetation treatments in Greater Sage-Grouse habitats to strategically reduce wildfire 

threats in the greatest area. This may involve spatially arranging new vegetation treatments 

with past treatments, vegetation with fire-resistant serial stages, natural barriers, and roads 

in order to constrain fire spread and growth. This may require vegetation treatments to be 

implemented in a more linear versus block design.

14. Design post Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation and Burned Area Emergency 

Response management to ensure long term persistence of seeded or pre-burn native plants. 

This may require temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing, wild horse and burro, 

and travel management, etc., to achieve and maintain the desired condition of Emergency
Worland Approved RMP 259

Appendix C Required Design Features and

Best Management Practices 

September 2015 Required Design Features

Stabilization and Rehabilitation and Burned Area Emergency Response projects to benefit 

Greater Sage-Grouse. Include Greater Sage-Grouse habitat parameters as defined by 

Connelly et al., Hagen et al., or if available, State Sage‐Grouse Conservation plans and 

appropriate local information in habitat restoration objectives. Make maintaining these 

objectives within priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat areas a high restoration priority. 

15. Make re‐establishment of sagebrush and desirable understory plant cover (relative to 

ecological site potential) a high priority for restoration efforts. Write specific vegetation 

objectives to reestablish Greater Sage-Grouse cover and desirable understory cover.

16. Where applicable, design fuels treatment objective to protect existing sagebrushecosystems, 

modify fire behavior, restore native plants, and create landscape patters which most benefit 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.

17. Provide training to fuels treatment personnel on Greater Sage-Grouse biology, habitat 

requirements, and identification of areas utilized locally.

18. Use fire prescriptions that minimize undesirable effects on vegetation or soils (e.g., minimize 

mortality of desirable perennial plant species and reduce risk of hydrophobicity). 

19. Ensure proposed sagebrush treatments are planned with interdisciplinary input from 

BLM, Forest Service and/or state wildlife agency biologist and that treatment acreage is 

conservative in the context of surrounding Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal habitats and 

landscape.

20. Where appropriate, ensure that treatments are configured in a manner (e.g., strips) that 

promotes use by Greater Sage-Grouse. 

21. Where applicable, incorporate roads and natural fuel breaks into fuel break design. 

22. Power‐wash all firefighting vehicles, including engines, water tenders, personnel vehicles, 

and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) prior to deploying in or near Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

areas to minimize noxious weed spread.

23. Design vegetation treatment in areas of high frequency to facilitate firefighting safety, reduce 

the risk of extreme fire behavior; and to reduce the risk and rate of fire spread to Greater 

Sage-Grouse key habitats and restoration habitats.

24. Give priority for implementing specific Greater Sage-Grouse habitat restoration projects 

in areas infested with undesirable annual grasses first to sites which are adjacent to or 

surrounded by Greater Sage-Grouse key habitats. Areas infested with undesirable annual 

grasses are second priority for restoration when the sites not adjacent to key habitat, but 

within two miles of key habitat. The third priority for areas infested with undesirable annual 

grasses habitat restoration projects are sites beyond two miles of key habitat. The intent is 

to focus restoration outward from existing, intact habitat.

25. As funding and logistics permit, restore areas infested with undesirable annual grasses to a 

species composition characterized by perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs. 

26. Emphasize the use of native plant species, recognizing that nonnative species may be 

necessary depending on the availability of native seed and prevailing site conditions. 

27. Remove standing and encroaching trees within at least 100 meters of occupied Greater 

Sage-Grouse leks and other habitats (e.g., nesting, wintering, and brood rearing) to reduce 

the availability of perch sites for avian predators, as appropriate, and resources permit.

28. Protect wildland areas from wildfire originating on private lands, infrastructure corridors, 

and recreational areas.

29. Develop state‐specific Greater Sage-Grouse reference information and resource materials 

containing maps, a list of resource advisors, contact information, local guidance, and other 

relevant information.

30. Provide localized maps to dispatch offices and extended attack incident commanders for use 

in prioritizing wildfire suppression resources and designing suppression tactics.
260 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix C Required Design Features and Best 

Management Practices

Required Design Features September 2015

31. Assign a Greater Sage-Grouse resource advisor to all extended attack fires in or near priority 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat areas. Prior to the fire season, provide training to Greater SageGrouse resource advisors on wildfire suppression organization, objectives, tactics, and 

procedures to develop a cadre of qualified individuals. 

32. On critical fire weather days, pre‐position additional fire suppression resources to optimize a 

quick and efficient response in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat areas.

33. During periods of multiple fires, ensure line officers are involved in setting priorities.

34. Locate wildfire suppression facilities (i.e., base camps, spike camps, drop points, staging 

areas, and heli‐bases) in areas where physical disturbance to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

can be minimized. These include disturbed areas, grasslands, near roads/trails or in other 

areas where there is existing disturbance or minimal sagebrush cover.

35. Minimize unnecessary cross‐country vehicle travel during fire operations in Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat.

36. Minimize burnout operations in key Greater Sage-Grouse habitats by constructing direct 

firelines whenever safe and practical to do so. 

37. Utilize retardant and mechanized equipment to minimize burned acreage during initial attack.

38. As safety allows, conduct mop‐up where the black adjoins unburned islands, dog legs, or 

other habitat features to minimize sagebrush loss.

Fire Operations BMPs for Sage-Grouse Conservation 

1. Compile district-level information into state-wide Greater Sage-Grouse tool boxes. Tool 

boxes will contain maps, listing of resource advisors, contact information, local guidance, 

and other relevant information for each district, which will be aggregated into a state-wide 

document. 

2. Provide localized maps to dispatch offices and extended attack incident commanders for use 

in prioritizing wildfire suppression resources and designing suppression tactics.

3. Assign a resource advisor with Greater Sage-Grouse expertise, or who has access to Greater 

Sage-Grouse expertise, to all extended attack fires in or near Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

areas. Prior to the fire season, provide training to Greater Sage-Grouse resource advisors 

on wildfire suppression organization, objectives, tactics, and procedures to develop a cadre 

of qualified individuals. 

4. On critical fire weather days, pre-position additional fire suppression resources to optimize a 

quick and efficient response in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat areas.

5. As appropriate, utilize existing fuel breaks, such as roads or discrete changes in fuel type, as 

control lines in order to minimize fire spread.

6. During periods of multiple fires, ensure line officers are involved in setting priorities.

7. To the extent possible, locate wildfire suppression facilities (i.e., base camps, spike camps, 

drop points, staging areas, heli-bases, etc.) in areas where physical disturbance to Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat can be minimized. These include disturbed areas, grasslands, near 

roads/trails or in other areas where there is existing disturbance or minimal sagebrush cover.

8. Power-wash all firefighting vehicles, to the extent possible, including engines, water tenders, 

personnel vehicles, and ATVs prior to deploying in or near Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

areas to minimize noxious weed spread.

9. Minimize unnecessary cross-country vehicle travel during fire operations in Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat.

10. Minimize burnout operations in key Greater Sage-Grouse habitat areas by constructing direct 

fireline whenever safe and practical to do so. 

11. Utilize retardant, mechanized equipment, and other available resources to minimize burned 

acreage during initial attack.
Worland Approved RMP 261

Appendix C Required Design Features and

Best Management Practices 

September 2015 Required Design Features

12. As safety allows, conduct mop-up where the black adjoins unburned islands, dog legs, or 

other habitat features to minimize sagebrush loss.

13. Adequately document fire operation activities in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat for potential 

follow-up coordination activities.

Fuels Management BMPs for Sage-Grouse Conservation 

1. Where applicable, design fuels treatment objectives to protect existing sagebrush ecosystems, 

modify fire behavior, restore native plants, and create landscape patterns which most benefit 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.

2. Provide training to fuels treatment personnel on Greater Sage-Grouse biology, habitat 

requirements, and identification of areas utilized locally.

3. Use burning prescriptions which minimize undesirable effects on vegetation or soils (e.g., 

minimize mortality of desirable perennial plant species and reduce risk of annual grass 

invasion). 

4. Ensure proposed sagebrush treatments are planned with full interdisciplinary input pursuant 

to NEPA and coordination with state fish and wildlife agencies, and that treatment acreage 

is conservative in the context of surrounding Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal habitats and 

landscape.

5. Where appropriate, ensure that treatments are configured in a manner that promotes use 

by Greater Sage-Grouse. 

6. Where applicable, incorporate roads and natural fuel breaks into fuel break design. 

7. Power-wash all vehicles and equipment involved in fuels management activities, prior to 

entering the area, to minimize the introduction of undesirable and/or invasive plant species.

8. Design vegetation treatments in areas of high fire frequency which facilitate firefighter 

safety, reduce the potential acres burned, and reduce the fire risk to Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat. Additionally, develop maps for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat which spatially display 

current fuels treatment opportunities for suppression resources.

9. Give priority for implementing specific Greater Sage-Grouse habitat restoration projects 

in areas infested with undesirable annual grasses, first to sites which are adjacent to or 

surrounded by preliminary priority habitat or that reestablish continuity between priority

habitats. Areas infested with undesirable annual grasses are a second priority for restoration 

when the sites are not adjacent to preliminary priority habitat, but within two miles of 

preliminary priority habitat. The third priority for areas infested with undesirable annual 

grasses habitat restoration projects are sites beyond two miles of preliminary priority habitat. 

The intent is to focus restoration outward from existing, intact habitat. 

10. As funding and logistics permit, restore areas infested with undesirable annual grasses to 

a species composition characterized by perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs or one of that 

referenced in land use planning documentation. 

11. Emphasize the use of native plant species, recognizing that nonnative species may be 

necessary depending on the availability of native seed and prevailing site conditions. 

12. Remove standing and encroaching trees within at least 100 meters of occupied Greater 

Sage-Grouse leks and other habitats (e.g., nesting, wintering and brood rearing) to reduce the 

availability of perch sites for avian predators, as resources permit.

13. Protect wildland areas from wildfire originating on private lands, infrastructure corridors, 

and recreational areas.

Oil and Gas Development 

1. Require unitization when deemed necessary for proper development and operation of an 

area or to facilitate more orderly (e.g., phased and/or clustered) development as a means
262 Worland Approved RMP

of minimizing adverse impacts to resources, including Greater Sage-Grouse, so long as the 

unitization plan adequately protects the rights of all parties including the United States, 

according to the Federal Lease Form, 3100-11, Sections 4 and 6. 

C.4. Best Management Practices

The BMPs shown in this appendix are not intended to encompass all potentially applicable BMPs. 

Instead, this appendix was developed to address specific issues brought forward during scoping, 

alternative development, and comments from the public and cooperating agencies. 

C.4.1. Best Management Practices for Important Cultural 

Resource and Trail Settings 

The BLM should use standard measures to reduce the visual impact of proposed actions within 

trail settings, where setting is a contributing element of eligibility to the National Register of 

Historic Places and the setting has integrity. Standard measures should be used as stipulations or 

conditions of approval attached to authorizations. Standard measures, or BMPs, for reducing the 

visibility of proposed actions include, but are not limited to: 

● Apply a controlled surface use stipulation to surface-disturbing activities or surface occupancy.

● Visual Contrast Ratings and, as appropriate, require visual simulations.

● Consolidate project facilities among oil and gas developers; maximize use of existing locations. 

● Develop coordinated road and pipeline systems.

● Reduce the amount of surface development by consolidating facilities.

● Use low-profile facilities.

● Locate projects to maximize the use of topography and vegetation to screen development. 

● Design projects to blend with topographic forms and existing vegetation patterns.

● Use environmental coloration or camouflage techniques to reduce the visual impact of facilities 

that cannot be completely hidden. 

● Use broken linear patterns for road developments to screen roads as much as possible. This 

can include feathering or blending of the edges of linear rights-of-way to soften the dominant 

line form.

● For livestock control, use electric fencing with low-visibility fiberglass posts and environmental 

colors. 

● Design linear facilities and seismic lines to run parallel to key observation points rather than 

perpendicular. 

● Position facilities to present less of a visual impact (e.g., a facility with several tanks lined up 

so that one obscures the visibility of the others).

C.4.2. Decontamination Procedure for Aquatic Invasive Species

To prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

recommends following the guidelines outlined in the Aquatic Invasive Species in Wyoming 

brochure (link below). Specific BMPs to aquatic invasive species spread prevention include, 

but are not limited to:

● Decontamination should first occur before arrival at a project site, so aquatic invasive species 

are not transferred from the last visited area. Decontamination should occur again before 

leaving a project site, so aquatic invasive species are not transferred to the next site.

Appendix C Required Design Features and Best 

Management Practices

Best Management Practices September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 263

● Decontamination may consist of either:

1. Drain all water from equipment and compartments, clean equipment of all mud, plants, 

debris, or animals, and dry equipment for five days in summer (June, July, and August); 

18 days in spring (March, April, and May) and fall (September, October, and November); 

or three days in winter (December, January, and February) when temperatures are at

or below freezing, 

-or2. Use a high pressure (2,500 pounds per square inch [psi]) hot water (140°F) pressure 

washer to thoroughly wash equipment and flush all compartments that may hold water.

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Fishing/AIS_INSPECTIONMANUAL.pdf

C.4.3. Wyoming Forestry Best Management Practices

The Wyoming Forestry Best Management Practices: Forestry BMPs Water Quality Protection 

Guidelines (link below) describes BMPs for the management of forest lands. These BMPs are a 

set of voluntary preferred methods of forestland management designed to protect water quality 

and forest soils, and are intended for use on non-industrial private, forest industry, state-owned 

and federal forests.

http://wyforestinfo.wyo.gov/best-management-practices

C.4.4. Reseeding Best Management Practices

The following recommendations may be required depending on the project size and location. 

1. Proposed actions where native brush species located on lands proposed to be disturbed are 

unique and desirable for interim and final reclamation purposes, and the seed supply for these 

desirable brush species is not commercially available, will be collected from the area and 

stored using the procedures of the Seeds of Success program. Seedlings or plugs of common 

dominant species will be propagated, preferably locally, in preparation for use in portions of 

area to be reclaimed to expedite vegetation recovery.

2. Areas of sustainable plant communities and populations (where they do not conflict with 

other allowable resource uses) will be identified as sources for native plant material and 

will be managed under consideration of the need to consistently produce seed stocks of 

non-commercially available materials for use in reclamation and restoration work (e.g., to 

support reclamation of abandoned mine lands or well pads or to supplement commercially 

available seeds in high fire years).

C.4.5. Engineering Best Management Practices

Road maintenance, construction, and any other related travel and transportation management 

will be mandated by BLM Manual 9113. BLM Manual 9113 provides for BMPs to be used 

in evaluating, maintaining, and constructing BLM travel and transportation routes. As stated 

in Manual 9113, “Bureau roads must be designed to an appropriate standard no higher than 

necessary to accommodate their intended functions adequately (timber hauling administrative 

access, public travel); and design, construction, and maintenance activities must be consistent 

Appendix C Required Design Features and

Best Management Practices

September 2015 Wyoming Forestry Best Management Practices
264 Worland Approved RMP

with national policies for safety, aesthetics, protection and preservation of cultural, historic, and 

scenic values, and accessibility for the physically handicapped. The following is a list of BMPs 

that are recommended but not binding for road maintenance practices: 

1. Design roads to minimize total disturbance, to conform with topography, and to minimize 

disruption of natural drainage patterns.

2. Base road design criteria and standards on road management objectives such as traffic 

requirements of the proposed activity and the overall transportation planning, economic 

analysis, safety requirements, resource objectives, and minimizing damage to the 

environment. 

3. Locate roads on stable terrain such as ridge tops, natural benches, and flatter transitional 

slopes near ridges, and valley bottoms, and moderate side slopes and away from slumps, 

slide prone areas, concave slopes, clay beds, and where rock layers dip parallel to the slope. 

Locate roads on well-drained soil types; avoid wet areas when possible. 

4. Construct cut and fill slopes to be approximately 3 horizontal (h):1 vertical (v) or flatter 

where feasible. Locate roads to minimize heights of cutbanks. Avoid high, steeply sloping 

cutbanks in highly fractured bedrock. 

5. Avoid headwalls, midslope locations on steep, unstable slopes, fragile soils, seeps, old 

landslides, side slopes in excess of 70 percent, and areas where the geologic bedding planes 

or weathering surfaces are inclined with the slope. Implement extra mitigation measures 

when these areas cannot be avoided. 

6. Construct roads for surface drainage by using outslopes, crowns, grade changes, drain dips, 

waterbars and in-sloping to ditches as appropriate. 

7. Sloping the road base to the outside edge for surface drainage is normally recommended 

for local spurs or minor collector roads where low-volume traffic and lower trafficspeeds 

are anticipated. This is also recommended in situations where long intervals between 

maintenance will occur and where minimum excavation is wanted. Out-sloping is not 

recommended on steep slopes. Sloping the road base to the inside edge is an acceptable 

practice on roads with steep side slopes and where the underlying soil formation is very 

rocky and not subject to appreciable erosion or failure.

8. Crown and ditching is recommended for arterial and collector roads where traffic volume, 

speed, intensity and user comfort are considerations. Recommended gradients range from 0 

to 15 percent where crown and ditching may be applied, as long as adequate drainage away 

from the road surface and ditch lines is maintained.

9. Minimize excavation, when constructing roads, through the use of balanced earthwork, 

narrowing road widths, and end hauling where side slopes are between 50 and 70 percent.

10. If possible, construct roads when soils are dry and not frozen. When soils or road surfaces 

become saturated to a depth of 3 inches, BLM-authorized activities should be limited or 

ceased unless otherwise approved by the authorized officer.

11. Consider improving inadequately surfaced roads that are to be left open to public traffic 

during wet weather with gravel or pavement to minimize sediment production and maximize 

safety.

12. Retain vegetation on cut slopes unless it poses a safety hazard or restricts maintenance 

activities. Roadside brushing of vegetation should be done in a way that prevents disturbance 

to root systems and visual intrusions (i.e., avoid using excavators for brushing). 

13. Retain adequate vegetation between roads and streams to filter runoff caused by roads. 

14. Avoid riparian/wetland areas where feasible; locate in riparian/wetland areas only if the 

roads do not interfere with the attainment of resource objectives.

15. Minimize the number of unimproved stream crossings. When a culvert or bridge is not 

feasible, locate drive-through (low water crossings) on stable rock portions of the drainage 

Appendix C Required Design Features and Best 

Management Practices

Engineering Best Management Practices September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 265

channel. Harden crossings with the addition of rock and gravel if necessary. Use angular 

rock if available.

16. Locate roads and limit activities of mechanized equipment within stream channels to 

minimize their influence on riparian areas. When crossing a stream is necessary, design the 

approach and crossing perpendicular to the channel, where practicable. Locate the crossing 

where the channel is well defined, unobstructed, and straight.

17. Avoid placing fill material in floodplain unless the material is large enough to remain in 

place during flood events.

18. Use drainage dips instead of culverts on level 2 roads where gradients will not present 

a safety issue. Locate drainage dips in such a way so that water will not accumulate or 

where outside berms prevent drainage from the roadway. Locate and design drainage dips 

immediately upgrade of stream crossings and provide buffer areas and catchment basins to 

prevent sediment from entering the stream.

19. Construct catchment basins, brush windrows, and culverts in a way to minimize sediment 

transport from road surfaces to stream channels. Install culverts in natural drainage channels 

in a way to conform with the natural streambed gradients with outlets that discharge onto 

rocky or hardened protected areas.

20. Design and locate water crossing structures in natural drainage channels to accommodate 

adequate fish passage, provide for minimum impacts to water quality, and to be capable of 

handling a 100-year event for runoff and floodwaters. 

21. Use culverts that pass, at a minimum, a 25-year storm event or have a minimum diameter 

of 24 inches for permanent stream crossings and a minimum diameter of 18 inches for 

road cross drains. 

22. Replace undersized culverts and repair or replace damaged culverts and downspouts. 

Provide energy dissipaters at culvert outlets or drainage dips. 

23. Locate culverts or drainage dips in such a manner as to avoid discharge onto unstable terrain 

such as headwalls or slumps. Provide adequate spacing to avoid accumulation of water in 

ditches or road surfaces. Culverts should be placed on solid ground to avoid road failures.

24. Proper sized aggregate and riprap should be used during culvert construction. Place riprap at 

culvert entrance to streamline waterflow and reduce erosion. 

25. Establish adapted vegetation on all cuts and fill immediately following road construction 

and maintenance.

26. Remove berms from the downslope side of roads, consistent with safety considerations. 

27. Leave abandoned roads in a condition that provides adequate drainage without further 

maintenance. Close abandoned roads to traffic. Physically obstruct the road with gates, 

large berms, trenches, logs, stumps, or rock boulders as necessary to accomplish permanent 

closure.

28. Abandon and rehabilitate roads that are no longer needed. Leave these roads in a condition 

that provides adequate drainage. Remove culverts.

29. When plowing snow for winter use of roads, provide breaks in snow berms to allow for road 

drainage. Avoid plowing snow into streams. Plow snow only on existing roads.

30. Maintenance should be performed to conserve existing surface material, retain the original 

crowned or out-sloped self-draining cross section, prevent or remove rutting berms (except 

those designed for slope protection) and other irregularities that retard normal surface runoff. 

Avoid wasting loose ditch or surface material over the shoulder where it can cause stream 

sedimentation or weaken slump-prone areas. Avoid undercutting back slopes. 

31. Do not disturb the toe of cut slopes while pulling ditches or grading roads. Avoidsidecasting 

road material into streams.

September 2015

Appendix C Required Design Features and

Best Management Practices 

Engineering Best Management Practices
266 Worland Approved RMP

32. Grade roads only as necessary. Maintain drain dips, waterbars, road crown, in-sloping and 

outsloping, as appropriate, during road maintenance.

33. Maintain roads in special areas according to special area guidance. Generally, retain roads 

within existing disturbed areas and sidecast material away from the special area.

34. When landslides occur, save all soil and material usable for reclamation or stockpile for 

future reclamation needs. Avoid sidecasting of slide material where it can damage, overload, 

and saturate embankments, or flow into down-slope drainage courses. Reestablish vegetation 

as needed in areas where vegetation has been destroyed due to sidecasting.

35. Strip and stockpile topsoil ahead of construction of new roads, if feasible. Reapply soil 

to cut and fill slopes prior to revegetation.

C.4.6. Best Management Practices for Livestock Grazing

The purpose of this section is not to attempt to select certain practices and require that only 

those be used. It is not possible to evaluate all the known practices and make determinations as 

to which are best. What is best must be determined as a result of a site-specific investigation of 

the proposed management action. No one management practice is best suited to every site or 

situation. BMPs must be adaptive and monitored regularly to evaluate effectiveness. 

The following sources contain information regarding grazing BMPs. Over time, other sources of 

information will become available and will be considered in proposed management actions. 

The National Range and Pasture Handbook 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/landuse/rangepasture/

?cid=stelprdb1043084

Best Management Practices for Grazing 

http://deq.wyoming.gov/media/attachments/Water%20Quality/Nonpoint%20Source/

Reports%20%26%20Documents/2013_wqd-wpp-Nonpoint-Source_Livestock-Wildlife-BestMangement-Practice-Manual.pdf

The following BMPs for livestock grazing management within Greater Sage-Grouse Priority 

Habitat Management Areas have been identified from Cagney et al. (2010): 

Sage-Grouse Habitat Season 

● Mating Leks: Avoid any new sources of disturbance such as range improvements on lek sites.

● Nesting/Early Brood-Rearing: Maintain the Sagebrush/Bunchgrass Plant Community wherever 

currently present. Manage for high vigor in all plant communities. Avoid repeatedly using 

cool-season bunchgrasses in the critical growing season and limit utilization to moderate levels 

to assure that the previous year’s standing crop is available for hiding cover.

● Late Brood-Rearing: Avoid repeatedly grazing riparian areas in seasons when temperatures 

are high. 

● Winter: Avoid levels of browsing on sagebrush that would limit Greater Sage-Grouse access 

to their food supply and cover. Additionally, avoid heavy use of herbaceous standing crop as 

this will adversely affect hiding cover the following spring.

Vegetation Community 

● Bunchgrass: Consider changes in management that would increase utilization or change the 

timing of grazing on these sites.

● Sagebrush/Bunchgrass:

Appendix C Required Design Features and Best 

Management Practices

Best Management Practices for Livestock Grazing September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 267

○ Retain sufficient residual cover to provide Sage-Grouse hiding cover the following year.

○ Employ planned grazing; periodic small-scale disturbance such as occasional thinning or 

specialized small ruminant grazing of dense (30+ percent canopy cover) sagebrush will 

help maintain this desired state.

● Sagebrush/Rhizomatous Grass/Bluegrass:

○ Establish grazing strategies tailored to plant growth requirements of cool-season grasses.

○ Retain sufficient residual cover to provide Sage-Grouse hiding cover the following year.

○ Avoid confining animals on inadequate pasture or supplemental feeding to compensate for 

a lack of natural forage.

● Sagebrush/Bare Ground: Restrict grazing in conjunction with restoration efforts until the siteis 

ready to sustain grazing.

C.4.7. Best Management Practices for Visual Resources

The following BMPs would be considered to reduce impacts to all visual resource management 

classes within the planning area:

● Burying of distribution power lines and flow lines in or adjacent to access roads; 

● Repeating elements of form, line, color, and texture to blend facilities and access roads with 

the surrounding landscape;

● Painting all above-ground structures, production equipment, tanks, transformers, and insulators 

not subject to safety requirements to blend with the natural color of the landscape, using paint 

that is a non-reflective “standard environmental color” approved by the BLM visual resource 

management (VRM) specialist:

○ All new equipment brought onto the sites should be painted the same color(s);

○ Semi-gloss paints will stain and fade less than flat paints; 

○ Typically, the background is a vegetated background, and seldom a solid background; 

○ The selected color should be one or two shades darker than the background; and

○ Consider the predominant season of public use; however, never paint an object to match 

snow.

● Performing final reclamation recontouring of all disturbed areas, including access roads, to the 

original contour or a contour that blends with the surrounding topography; 

● Avoiding facility placement on steep slopes, ridge tops, and hilltops;

● Screening facilities from view;

● Following contours of the land to reduce unnecessary disturbance;

● Recontouring and revegetating disturbed areas to blend with the surrounding landscape;

● Reclaiming unnecessary access roads as soon as possible to the original contour; 

● Using gravel of a similar color to adjacent dominant soil and vegetation colors for road 

surfacing;

● Use dust abatement to reduce fugitive dust, as well as minimize the light colors of the routes; 

● Avoiding locating pads in areas visible from primary roads;

● Using subsurface or low-profile facilities to prevent protrusion above horizon line when viewed 

from any primary road; 

● Co-locating wells when possible; 

● Locating facilities far enough from the cut and fill slopes to facilitate recontouring forinterim 

reclamation;

● Locating wells away from prominent features, such as rock outcrops; 

● Completing an annual transportation plan for entire area before beginning construction, and 

making a layout that will minimize disturbance and visual impact;

Appendix C Required Design Features and

Best Management Practices

September 2015 Best Management Practices for Visual Resources
268 Worland Approved RMP

● Designing and constructing all new roads to a safe and appropriate standard “no higher than 

necessary” to accommodate their intended use;

● Locating roads far enough off the back of ridgelines so they aren’t visible from state, county, 

or BLM roads; 

● Using remote monitoring to reduce traffic and road requirements;

● Removing unused equipment, trash, and junk immediately.

C.4.8. Best Management Practices for Water Resources

BMPs would be appropriate for consideration to mitigate potential water quality impacts when 

proposed oil and gas activities are within 500 feet of riparian areas and surface waters of the 

state, Source Water Protection Areas identified in Wellhead or Source Water Protection Plans 

approved by the local governing body, and “High” and “Moderately High” sensitivity aquifers 

(identified throughout the use of the Wyoming Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment Handbook 

(as updated over time). BMPs to mitigate impacts to water resources include, but are not limited 

to, the following: 

● Those management approaches for oil and gas activities required by Source Water and 

Wellhead Protection Plans approved by the local governing body; or 

● Use closed loop drilling systems;

● Do not use evaporation ponds in proximity to shallow aquifers;

● Do not use unlined ponds or pits overlying sensitive aquifers;

● Line surface impoundment ponds (evaporation ponds or drilling pits) with synthetic liners and 

subsequently decommission by removing all contaminants and liner and reclaiming the area;

● Identify water supply wells and implement appropriate protection measures for the affected 

aquifer(s), as necessary to prevent the introduction of contaminants into the well;

● Require a monitoring plan which includes collection of baseline and periodic water quality 

data from potentially affected water supply wells, identification of parameters to monitor, 

reporting results to BLM and well owners, reporting to Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality-Air Quality Division; 

● Review the geology of shallow aquifers to determine well construction requirements, which 

may include cementing to surface and drilling with a fresh water mud system;

● Requirement surface casing and cement to a specific formation or depth to protect aquifers at 

depth that need protection:

○ Set surface casing below the lowermost underground sources of drinking water and set 

into a confining (e.g., shale) layer;

○ Set an intermediate string of casing and cement in the event of deep aquifers;

○ Require submittal of a well logging plan and document submittal of plan to ensure proper 

well construction to protect groundwater. If a lost circulation event occurs during the 

installation of surface casing, a cement bond log will be required to be run on the surface 

casing to determine if the cement is adequate and protective.

○ Review the geology of shallow aquifers in proximity to groundwater development activities 

to determine potential impacts to flow patterns supporting water elements such as fen, 

wetlands, springs, and seeps, and ponds. 

Appendix C Required Design Features and Best 

Management Practices

Best Management Practices for Water Resources September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 269

C.4.9. Best Management Practices for Greater Sage-Grouse 

Protection

Knowledge of BMPs for Greater Sage-Grouse protections is an evolving field. As research is 

done on impacts of various kinds of activities, or the absence thereof, on Greater Sage-Grouse, 

additional protections will be identified. While some of these will be generic enough to be applied 

planning area-wide, others will require site-specific analysis to determine if they are appropriate 

for inclusion as a mandatory COA. This BMP section of this appendix will be supplemented as 

technology and understanding of Greater Sage-Grouse advance.

Bibliography 

Cagney, Jim, Bainter, E., B. Budd, T. Christiansen, V. Herren, M. Holloran, B. Rashford, M. 

Smith, J. Williams. 2010. Grazing Influence, Objective Development, and Management in 

Wyoming’s Greater Sage-grouse Habitat. University of Wyoming Cooperative Extension 

Service. B-1203. 62pp. 

Sage-Grouse NTT (National Technical Team). 2011. A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures. December.

September 2015

Appendix C Required Design Features and

Best Management Practices 

Best Management Practices for Greater

Sage-Grouse Protection
This page intentionally 

left blank
Worland Approved RMP 271

Appendix D. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy 

D.1. Introduction

The Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plans (RMPs), including the Worland 

Approved RMP and Greater Sage-Grouse Amendments, provide specific goals, objectives, 

management actions, and required design features for the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse in 

Wyoming. These are the commitments made to meet the federal agencies’ national policy and 

direction for the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse in light of the 2010 U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) listing decision as warranted but precluded from listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. Through the National Planning Strategy, the BLM has coordinated with the USFWS 

to identify conservation measures to be included in land use plans as the principal regulatory 

mechanisms to assure adequate conservation of the Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat on public 

lands. 

The measures identified in the Worland Approved RMP have been developed in coordination 

with not just the USFWS, but also the State of Wyoming, including the Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department (WGFD), and local cooperating agencies including conservation districts and 

counties. 

Wyoming has established Core Population Areas to help delineate landscape planning units by 

distinguishing areas of high biological value. These areas are based on the locations of breeding 

areas and are intended to help balance Greater Sage-Grouse habitat requirements with demand 

for energy development (Doherty et al. 2011). The Worland Approved RMP is consistent with 

the Core Area Strategy, but contains additional restrictions to protect other resources, which 

results in added protections to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and achieving conservation objectives 

identified in the Conservation Objectives Team (COT) Report on BLM-managed public lands. 

The COT Report indicates that the Core Area Strategy is a substantial regulatory mechanism that 

contributes to the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse and balances the priorities of retaining a 

healthy Greater Sage-Grouse population on the landscape and energy development. 

This appendix will introduce the framework for implementation of Greater Sage-Grouse 

conservation measures within the Worland Field Office. Implementation is a combination of 

permitting activities under the auspices of management direction provided in the Land Use Plan 

(LUP), undertaking specific activities in pursuit of the goals and objectives identified in the plan 

and monitoring of sage brush habitat and populations. 

The implementation framework outlined here is focused specifically towards Greater Sage-Grouse 

and is reflective of how the national strategy will be assimilated into the existing statewide 

implementation efforts currently in place in Wyoming. This framework has been developed 

mindful of the varying scales at which implementation will be evaluated: at the local level to 

define successful conservation measures, at the state level to assess success of the statewide 

strategy, and across the species’ range.

In 2013, the Director of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service tasked staff with the development of 

range-wide conservation objectives for the Greater Sage-Grouse to define the degree to which 

threats need to be reduced or ameliorated to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse so that it is no 

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy

September 2015 Introduction
272 Worland Approved RMP

longer in danger of extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable 

future. Recognizing that state wildlife agencies have management expertise and management 

authority for Greater Sage-Grouse, the FWS created a COT of state and USFWS representatives 

to accomplish this task.

The COT conservation framework consisted of (1) identifying Greater Sage-Grouse population 

and habitat status and threats, (2) defining a broad conservation goal, (3) identifying priority areas 

for conservation, and (4) developing specific conservation objectives and measures. The COT 

used three parameters—population and habitat representation, redundancy, and resilience (Shaffer 

and Stein 2010, Redford et al. 2011)—as guiding concepts in developing the conservation goal, 

priority areas for conservation, conservation objectives, and measures. 

The COT report identified priority areas for Greater Sage-Grouse population habitats as Priority 

Areas for Conservation or (PACs). PACs are recognized as key areas across the landscape that 

are necessary to maintain redundant, representative, and resilient populations” of the species. 

The COT Report describes maintaining the integrity of PACs as “the essential foundation for 

Greater Sage-Grouse conservation.” PACs cover nearly 73 million acres across the west; within 

the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, more than 1.1 million acres of BLM-administered surface 

are considered priority habitat (Table D.1, “Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat within the Bighorn

Basin Planning Area” (p. 272)). Thirty-five percent of the priority habitat in the Planning Area 

is BLM-administered surface and twenty-six percent is BLM-administered minerals. Based 

upon 2007 through 2015 lek counts, and the population data contained in the COT Report, the 

Bighorn Basin Planning Area contains an estimated two percent of the range-wide population 

of Greater Sage-Grouse. Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMAs) and General Habitat 

Management Areas (GHMAs) within the Planning Area are depicted in Figure D.1, “Priority

Habitat Management Areas and General Habitat Management Areas within the Bighorn Basin

Planning Area” (p. 273). 

Table D.1. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area

Populations / Subpopulations:

Wyoming Basin and Powder River Basin Populations 

WAFWA Management Zone I and II

Surface Estate Priority Habitat Acres (%) General Habitat Acres (%)

Private 505,850 (28) 1,327,877 (36)

State 151,591 (8) 244,045 (7)

BLM 1,115,076 (62) 2,034,027 (55)

Other 13,652 (1) 86,707 (2)

Total 1,786,169 3,692,656

Fluid Mineral Estate Priority Habitat Acres (%) General Habitat Acres (%)

Non-federal 360,032 (20) 1,099,993 (30)

BLM 1,426,137 (80) 2,592,663 (70)

Total 1,786,169 3,692,656

% percent

BLM Bureau of Land Management

WAFWA Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

Introduction September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 273

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy 

COT Objective 1: Stop Population Declines

September 2015 and Habitat Loss

Figure D.1. Priority Habitat Management Areas and General Habitat Management Areas 

within the Worland Field Office

The conservation objectives identified in the COT Report, targeted at maintaining redundant, 

representative, and resilient Greater Sage-Grouse habitats and populations, is the basis on which 

the Greater Sage-Grouse elements of the Worland Approved RMP were developed. Due to the 

variability in ecological conditions and the nature of the threats across the range of the Greater 

Sage-Grouse, developing detailed, prescriptive species or habitat actions was not attainable 

at the range-wide scale. Specific strategies and actions necessary to achieve the conservation 

objectives have been developed by BLM in cooperation with state and local governments to 

ensure implementation of activities to meet the objectives identified in the COT report.

D.2. COT Objective 1: Stop Population Declines and HabitatLoss

There is an urgent need to ‘stop the bleeding’ of continued population declines and 

habitat losses by acting immediately to eliminate or reduce the impacts contributing to 

population declines and range erosion. There are no populations within the range of 

Greater Sage-Grouse that are immune to the threat of habitat loss and fragmentation. 

(COT Report 2013) 
274 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

COT Objective 1: Stop Population Declines and 

Habitat Loss September 2015

The COT Report identified a series of threats to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and the extent of 

those threats at the population scale. The management actions identified in the Worland Approved 

RMP were specifically designed to reduce the threats, as they were identified. The Bighorn 

Basin Planning Area encompasses lands within WAFWA Management Zones 1 and 2. To ensure 

that the threats are adequately addressed by the RMP, a strategy for reviewing activities and 

projects on public lands to determine the extent of their impact on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

has also been developed. The following outlines the process by which all activities on public 

lands will be reviewed.

The BLM will ensure that any activities or projects in Greater Sage-Grouse habitats would: 

1) only occur in compliance with Worland Approved RMP Greater Sage-Grouse goals and 

objectives for priority management areas; and 2) maintain neutral or positive Greater Sage-Grouse 

population trends and habitat by avoiding, minimizing, and offsetting unavoidable impacts to 

assure a conservation gain at the scale of this land use plan and within Greater Sage-Grouse 

population areas, state boundaries, and WAFWA Management Zones through the application of 

mitigation for implementation-level decisions. The mitigation process will follow the regulations 

from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1508.20; e.g., avoid, 

minimize, and compensate), hereafter referred to as the mitigation hierarchy, while also following 

Secretary of the Interior Order 3330 and consulting BLM, USFWS and other current and 

appropriate mitigation guidance. If it is determined that residual impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse 

from implementation-level actions would remain after applying avoidance and minimization 

measures to the extent possible, then compensatory mitigation projects will be used to offset 

residual impacts, or the project may be deferred or denied if necessary to achieve the goals and 

objectives for priority and general management areas in the Worland Approved RMP. 

To ensure that impacts from activities proposed in Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs are appropriately 

approved and mitigated as necessary, the BLM will apply mitigation measures and conservation 

actions and potentially modify the location, design, construction, and/or operation of proposed 

land uses or activities to comply with statutory requirements for environmental protection. The 

mitigation measures and conservation actions (Appendix C, Required Design Features and Best

Management Practices (p. 249)) for proposed projects or activities in these areas will be identified 

as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental review process, 

through interdisciplinary analysis involving resource specialists, project proponents, government 

entities, landowners or other Surface Management Agencies. Those measures selected for 

implementation will be identified in the Record of Decision (ROD) or Decision Record (DR) for 

those authorizations and will inform a potential lessee, permittee, or operator of the requirements 

that must be met when using BLM-administered public lands and minerals to mitigate, per the 

mitigation hierarchy referenced above, impacts from the activity or project such that Greater 

Sage-Grouse goals and objectives are met. Because these actions create a clear obligation for the 

BLM to ensure any proposed mitigation action adopted in the environmental review process is 

performed, there is assurance that mitigation will lead to a reduction of environmental impacts in 

the implementation stage and include binding mechanisms for enforcement (CEQ Memorandum 

for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies 2011). 

To achieve the goals and objectives for PHMAs in the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, the BLM 

will assess all proposed land uses or activities such as road, pipeline, communication tower, or 

powerline construction, fluid and solid mineral development, range improvements, and 

recreational activities proposed for location in PHMAs in a step-wise manner. The following 

steps identify a sequential screening process for review of proposed activities or projects in these 

areas (Table D.2, “Implementation of RMP Decisions to Address COT Threats” (p. 275)). This 
Worland Approved RMP 275

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy 

COT Objective 1: Stop Population Declines

September 2015 and Habitat Loss

process will provide a consistent approach and ensure that authorization of these projects, if 

granted, will appropriately mitigate impacts and be consistent with the RMP goals and objectives 

for Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Table D.2. Implementation of RMP Decisions to Address COT Threats

COT Threat Threat Extent Program Area RMP Decision Implementation 

Process

Tracking 

Mechanism

Sagebrush 

Elimination

Present but 

Localized (MZ1) 

Present but 

Localized 

(Wyoming Basin 

Population)

Vegetation 

Management 

Wildland Fire 

Management

Weeds/ Annual 

Grasses

Present but 

Localized (MZ1) 

Present but 

Localized 

(Wyoming Basin 

Population)

Vegetation 

Management 

Range 

Management 

Wildland Fire 

Management 

Recreation

Energy Present and 

Widespread 

(MZ1)

Present and 

Widespread 

(Wyoming Basin 

Population)

Lands and Realty 

Fluid Minerals

Fire Present but 

Localized (MZ1) 

Present but 

Localized 

(Wyoming Basin 

Population)

Wildland Fire 

Management

Grazing

Range 

Management 

Structures

Present and 

Widespread 

(MZ1)

Present and 

Widespread 

(Wyoming Basin 

Population)

Range 

Management 

Wild Horse 

and Burro 

Management 

Special Status 

Species 

Vegetation

Management

Free-Roaming 

Equids

Not Present 

(MZ1)

Present but 

Localized 

(Wyoming Basin 

Population)

Wild Horse 

and Burro 

Management

Conifer 

Encroachment

Present but 

Localized (MZ1) 

Present but 

Localized 

(Wyoming Basin 

Population)

Wildland Fire 

Management 

Vegetation 

Management
276 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

COT Objective 1: Stop Population Declines and 

Habitat Loss September 2015

COT Threat Threat Extent Program Area RMP Decision Implementation 

Process

Tracking 

Mechanism

Agriculture and 

Urbanization

Present but 

Localized (MZ1) 

Present but 

Localized 

(Wyoming Basin 

Population)

Lands and Realty

Mining Present and 

Widespread 

(MZ1)

Present but 

Localized 

(Wyoming Basin 

Population)

Lands and Realty 

Locatable 

Minerals

Salable Minerals 

Non‐energy 

Leasable Minerals

Management

Recreation Present and 

Widespread 

(MZ1)

Present and 

Widespread 

(Wyoming Basin 

Population)

Recreation

Trails and Travel 

Management

Infrastructure Present and 

Widespread 

(MZ1)

Present and 

Widespread 

(Wyoming Basin 

Population)

Lands and Realty 

Trails and Travel 

Management

Step 1 – Determine Proposal Adequacy 

This screening process is initiated upon formal submittal of a proposal for authorization for 

use of BLM lands. The actual documentation of the proposal would include at a minimum a 

description of the location, scale of the project and timing of the disturbance. The acceptance of 

the proposal(s) for review would be consistent with existing protocol and procedures for each 

type of use. Evaluating consistency with (at a minimum) state Greater Sage-Grouse regulations. 

Step 2 – Evaluate Proposal Consistency with LUP 

Step 2.1 – The proposal will be reviewed to determine whether it would be allowed as prescribed 

in the Land Use Plan. For example, some activities or types of development are prohibited in 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, such as wind developments in Priority Habitat. Evaluation of 

projects will also include an assessment of the current state of the Adaptive Management hard 

and soft triggers. If the proposal is for an activity that is specifically prohibited, the applicant 

should be informed that the application is being rejected since it would not be allowed, regardless 

of the design of the project. 

Step 2.2 – The proposal will be reviewed to determine whether it conforms with the Density and 

Disturbance Limitations. If the proposed activity occurs within a PHMA, evaluate whether the 

disturbance from the activity exceeds the limit on the amount of disturbance allowed within

the activity or project area (Density/Disturbance Calculation Tool [DDCT] process). If current 

disturbance within the activity area or the anticipated disturbance from the proposed activity 

exceeds this threshold, the project would be deferred until such time as the amount of disturbance 

within the area has been reduced below the threshold, redesigned so as to not result in any 
Worland Approved RMP 277

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy 

COT Objective 1: Stop Population Declines

September 2015 and Habitat Loss

additional surface disturbance (collocation) or redesigned to move it outside of PHMA. Should 

the project be a result of a valid existing right, BLM will work to minimize the disturbance and 

determine any residual impacts that may require appropriate mitigation. 

The maximum density of disruptive activities and surface disturbance allowed will be analyzed 

via the DDCT, and will be conducted by the Federal Land Management Agency on federal land 

and the project proponent on non-federal (private, state) land per the RMP revision.

State Agency Permit is needed, without a need for a federal permit: 

The first point of contact for addressing Greater Sage-Grouse issues for any state permit 

application should be the WGFD. Project proponents (proponents) need to have a thorough 

description of their project and identify the potential effects on Greater Sage-Grouse prior to 

submitting an application to the permitting agency. Project proponents should contact WGFD at 

least 45-60 days prior to submitting their application. More complex projects will require more 

time. It is understood that WGFD has a role of consultation, recommendation, and facilitation, 

and has no authority to either approve or deny the project. The purpose of the initial consultation 

with the WGFD is to become familiar with the project proposal and ensure the project proponent 

understands the DDCT and recommended stipulations. 

Federal Agency Permit is needed, with or without a State permit: 

When a project requires federal action prior to approval, the proponent should contact the 

federal agency responsible for reviewing the action. The federal agency and the proponent will 

determine the best process for completing the DDCT and receiving recommendations from 

WGFD. Project proponents (proponents) need to have a thorough description of their project 

and identify the potential effects on Greater Sage-Grouse prior to submitting an application to 

the permitting agency.

Maximum Density and Disturbance Process 

Density and Disturbance Calculation: The DDCT is a spatially based tool that calculates 

both the average density of disruptive activities and total surface disturbance within the area 

affected by the project, or DDCT assessment area. The DDCT assessment area is created based 

on buffers around proposed projects (first buffer) in protected Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs, and 

subsequent buffers around any occupied, PHMA leks within the first b uffer. A 4-mile buffer is

used to identify 75% of the Greater Sage-Grouse use around a lek. All activities will be evaluated 

within the context of maximum allowable disturbance (disturbance percentages, location and 

number of disturbances) of suitable Greater Sage-Grouse habitat within the DDCT assessment 

area. This tool allows for better siting of projects rather than averaging the density/disturbance 

calculation per section.

All lands within PHMA boundaries are is considered suitable habitat unless documented. Mapped 

unsuitable habitat is treated neither as suitable habitat, nor disturbance, which results in the area 

being removed from the DDCT assessment area altogether.

1. Density/Disturbance Calculation Tool: Determine all occupied leks within PHMAs that 

may be affected by the project by placing a 4 mile boundary around the project boundary 

(as defined by the proposed area of disturbance related to the project). All occupied leks 

located within the 4 mile boundary and within PHMAs will be considered in this assessment 

(Figure D.2, “Proposed Project Boundary” (p. 278)).
278 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

COT Objective 1: Stop Population Declines and 

Habitat Loss September 2015

Figure D.2. Proposed Project Boundary 

A 4-mile boundary will then be placed around the perimeter of each of these lek(s) (Figure D.2,

“Proposed Project Boundary” (p. 278)).

The PHMAs within the combined 4-mile buffer around both the leks and the project boundary 

creates the DDCT assessment area for each individual project (Figure D.3, “DDCT Assessment

Area” (p. 279)).
Worland Approved RMP 279

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy 

COT Objective 1: Stop Population Declines

September 2015 and Habitat Loss

Figure D.3. DDCT Assessment Area

Disturbance will be analyzed for the DDCT assessment area as a whole and for each individual 

lek within the DDCT assessment area ( Figure D.4, “DDCT Assessment Area – Existing

Disturbance” (p. 280) through Figure D.7, “DDCT Assessment Area – Existing Disturbance with

Buffer (cont.)” (p. 281)).
280 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

COT Objective 1: Stop Population Declines and 

Habitat Loss September 2015

Figure D.4. DDCT Assessment Area – Existing Disturbance

Figure D.5. DDCT Assessment Area – Existing Disturbance (cont.) 
Worland Approved RMP 281

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy 

COT Objective 1: Stop Population Declines

September 2015 and Habitat Loss

Figure D.6. DDCT Assessment Area – Existing Disturbance with Buffer

Figure D.7. DDCT Assessment Area – Existing Disturbance with Buffer (cont.)
282 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

COT Objective 1: Stop Population Declines and 

Habitat Loss September 2015

Density of disruptive features will be analyzed for the DDCT assessment area as a whole and for 

each individual lek within the DDCT assessment area (Figure D.8, “DDCT Assessment Area –

Existing Disruptive Features” (p. 282) through Figure D.10, “DDCT Assessment Area – Existing

Disruptive Features Buffer (cont.)” (p. 283)).

Figure D.8. DDCT Assessment Area – Existing Disruptive Features
Worland Approved RMP 283

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy 

COT Objective 1: Stop Population Declines

September 2015 and Habitat Loss

Figure D.9. DDCT Assessment Area – Existing Disruptive Features Buffer

Figure D.10. DDCT Assessment Area – Existing Disruptive Features Buffer (cont.)
284 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

COT Objective 1: Stop Population Declines and 

Habitat Loss September 2015

If there are no leks identified for this assessment within the 4-mile boundary around the project 

boundary, the DDCT assessment area will be that portion of the 4-mile project boundarywithin 

the PHMAs.

2. Density and Disturbance analysis: The total number of discrete disruptive activity features, 

as well as the total disturbance acres within the DDCT assessment area will be determined 

through an evaluation of:

a. Existing disturbance (Greater Sage-Grouse habitat that is disturbed due to existing 

anthropogenic activity and wildfire);

b. Approved permits (that have approval for on the ground activity) not yet implemented; 

and

c. Validating digitized disturbance through on the ground evaluation. 

The complete analysis package (DDCT results, mapbook, and Worksheet), and recommendations 

developed by consultation and review outlined herein will be forwarded to the appropriate 

permitting agency(s). WGFD recommendations will be included, as will other recommendations 

from project proponents and other appropriate agencies. Project proponent shall have access to all 

information used in developing recommendations. Where possible and when requested by the 

project proponent, State agencies shall provide the project proponent with potential development 

alternatives other than those contained in the project proposal. 

If the permit for which a proponent has applied expires, another DDCT analysis is required 

before issuing a new permit. An additional DDCT is not required for Permit extensions or 

renewals when no changes are being authorized. Any project will need to comply with the current 

Executive Order.

Step 2.3 – The BLM’s goal for any new activity or development proposal within PHMAs is to 

provide consistent implementation of project proposals which meet the BLM’s LUP goals and 

the population management objectives of the State. Activities would be consistent with the 

strategy where it can be sufficiently demonstrated that no declines to PHMA populations would 

be expected as a result of the proposed action. Published research suggests that impacts to Greater 

Sage-Grouse leks associated primarily with infrastructure and energy development are discernible 

at a distance of at least 4 miles and that many leks within this radius have been extirpated as a 

direct result of development (Walker et al. 2007, Walker 2008). Research also suggests that an 

evaluation of habitats and Greater Sage-Grouse populations that attend leks within an 11-mile 

radius from the project boundary in the context of “large” projects may be appropriate in order to 

consider all seasonal habitats that may be affected for birds that use the habitats associated with 

the proposal during some portion of the life-cycle of seasonally migratory Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Connelly et al. 2000). 

To determine the manner in which Greater Sage-Grouse may be impacted by proposed 

undertakings, the following will be reviewed in the site specific NEPA analysis to quantify the 

effects:

● Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat delineation maps.

● Current science recommendations. 

● The ‘Base Line Environment Report’ (USGS) which identifies areas of direct and indirect 

effect for various anthropogenic activities.

● Consultation with agency or State Wildlife Agency biologist.

● Other methods needed to provide an accurate assessment of impacts.
Worland Approved RMP 285

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy 

COT Objective 1: Stop Population Declines

September 2015 and Habitat Loss

If the proposal will not have a direct or indirect impact on either the habitat or population, 

document the findings in the NEPA and proceed with the appropriate process for review, decision 

and implementation of the project. 

Step 3 – Apply Avoidance and Minimization Measures to Comply with Sage-Grouse Goals 

and Objectives

If the project can be relocated so as to not have an impact on Greater Sage-Grouse and still 

achieve objectives of the proposal and the disturbance limitations, relocate the proposed activity 

and proceed with the appropriate process for review, decision and implementation (NEPA and

Decision Record). This Step does not consider redesign of the project to reduce or eliminate direct 

and indirect impacts, but rather authorization of the project in a physical location that will not 

impact Greater Sage-Grouse. If the preliminary review of the proposal concludes that there may 

be adverse impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat or populations in Step 2 and the project cannot 

be effectively relocated to avoid these impacts, proceed with the appropriate process for review, 

decision and implementation (NEPA and Decision Record) with the inclusion of appropriate 

mitigation requirements to further reduce or eliminate impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

and populations and achieve compliance with Greater Sage-Grouse objectives. Mitigation 

measures could include design modifications of the proposal, site disturbance restoration, 

post-project reclamation, etc. (see Appendix C, Required Design Features and Best Management

Practices (p. 249)). Compensatory or offsite mitigation may be required (Step 4) in situations 

where residual impacts remain after application of all avoidance and minimization measures. 

Step 4 – Apply Compensatory Mitigation or Reject/Defer Proposal 

If screening of the proposal has determined that direct and indirect impacts cannot be eliminated 

through avoidance or minimization, evaluate the proposal to determine if compensatory mitigation 

can be used to offset the remaining adverse impacts and achieve Greater Sage-Grouse goals and 

objectives. If the impacts cannot be effectively mitigated, reject or defer the proposal. The criteria 

for determining this situation could include but are not limited to:

● The current trend within the Priority Habitat is down and additional impacts, whether mitigated 

or not, could lead to further decline of the species or habitat.

● The proposed mitigation is inadequate in scope or duration, has proven to be ineffective or is 

unproven is terms of science based approach. 

● The project would impact habitat that has been determined to be a limiting factor for species 

sustainability.

● Other site specific information and analysis that determined the project would lead to a 

downward change of the current species population or habitat and not comply with Greater 

Sage-Grouse goals and objectives.

If, following application of available impact avoidance and minimization measures, the project 

can be mitigated to fully offset impacts and assure conservation gain to the species and comply 

with Greater Sage-Grouse goals and objectives, proceed with the appropriate process for review, 

decision and implementation (NEPA and Decision Record). 

Mitigation

General

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

applicable law, in authorizing third party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation, the 
286 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

COT Objective 1: Stop Population Declines and 

Habitat Loss September 2015

BLM will require and assure mitigation that provides a net conservation gain to the species 

including accounting for any uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of such mitigation. 

This will be achieved by avoiding, minimizing, and compensating for impacts by applying 

beneficial mitigation actions. In Wyoming, the USFWS has found that “the core area strategy, if 

implemented by all landowners via regulatory mechanism, would provide adequate protection 

for Greater Sage-Grouse and their habitats in the state.” The BLM will implement actions

to achieve the goal of net conservation gain consistent with the Wyoming Strategy (State of 

Wyoming Executive Order 2015-4). Compensatory mitigation would be used when avoidance 

and minimization measures consistent with State of Wyoming Executive Order 2015-4 are 

inadequate to protect Core Population Area Greater Gage-Grouse. 

Mitigation will follow the regulations from the White House Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) (40 CFR 1508.20; e.g., avoid, minimize, and compensate), hereafter referred to as the 

mitigation hierarchy. If impacts from BLM management actions and authorized third party actions 

that result in habitat loss and degradation remain after applying avoidance and minimization 

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

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

addition to that which would have resulted without the compensatory mitigation (see Glossary).

The BLM, via the WAFWA Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team, will 

develop a WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy that will inform the 

NEPA decision making process including the application of the mitigation hierarchy for BLM 

management actions and third party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation. A robust 

and transparent Regional Mitigation Strategy will contribute to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

conservation by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats and compensating for residual 

impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat.

The BLM’s Regional Mitigation Manual MS-1794 serves as a framework for developing and 

implementing a Regional Mitigation Strategy. The following sections provide additional guidance 

specific to the development and implementation of a WAFWA Management Zone Regional 

Mitigation Strategy.

Developing a WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy 

The BLM, via the WAFWA Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team, will 

develop a WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy to guide the application of 

the mitigation hierarchy for BLM management actions and third party actions that result in 

habitat loss and degradation. The Strategy should consider any State-level Greater Sage-Grouse 

mitigation guidance that is consistent with the requirements identified in this Appendix. The 

Regional Mitigation Strategy should be developed in a transparent manner, based on the best 

science available and standardized metrics.

As described in the Worland Approved RMP, the BLM will establish a WAFWA Management 

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

Greater Sage-Grouse, within 90 days of the issuance of the Record of Decision. The Strategy will 

be developed within one year of the issuance of the Record of Decision. 

The Regional Mitigation Strategy should include mitigation guidance on avoidance, minimization, 

and compensation, as follows: 

● Avoidance 
Worland Approved RMP 287

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy 

COT Objective 1: Stop Population Declines

September 2015 and Habitat Loss

○ Include avoidance areas (e.g., right-of-way avoidance/exclusion areas, no surface occupancy 

areas) already included in laws, regulations, policies, and/or land use plans (e.g., Resource 

Management Plans, State Plans); and, 

○ Include any potential, additional avoidance actions (e.g., additional avoidance best 

management practices) with regard to Greater Sage-Grouse conservation. 

● Minimization

○ Include minimization actions (e.g., required design features, best management practices) 

already included in laws, regulations, policies, land use plans, and/or land-use authorizations; 

and, 

○ Include any potential, additional minimization actions (e.g., additional minimization best 

management practices) with regard to Greater Sage-Grouse conservation. 

● Compensation 

○ Include discussion of impact/project valuation, compensatory mitigation options, siting, 

compensatory project types and costs, monitoring, reporting, and program administration. 

Each of these topics is discussed in more detail below.

■ Residual Impact and Compensatory Mitigation Project Valuation Guidance 

■ A common standardized method should be identified for estimating the value of the 

residual impacts and value of the compensatory mitigation projects, including accounting 

for any uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of the projects.

■ This method should consider the quality of habitat, scarcity of the habitat, and the size of 

the impact/project.

■ For compensatory mitigation projects, consideration of durability (see glossary), 

timeliness (see glossary), and the potential for failure (e.g., uncertainty associated with 

effectiveness) may require an upward adjustment of the valuation. 

■ The resultant compensatory mitigation project will, after application of the above 

guidance, result in proactive conservation measures for Greater Sage-Grouse (consistent 

with BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management, section .02). 

● Compensatory Mitigation Options 

○ Options for implementing compensatory mitigation should be identified, such as:

■ Utilizing certified mitigation/conservation bank or credit exchanges.

■ Contributing to an existing mitigation/conservation fund. 

● Compensatory Mitigation Siting

○ Sites should be in areas that have the potential to yield a net conservation gain to the Greater 

Sage-Grouse, regardless of land ownership. 

○ Sites should be durable (see glossary).

○ Sites identified by existing plans and strategies (e.g., fire restoration plans, invasive species 

strategies, healthy land focal areas) should be considered, if those sites have the potential to 

yield a net conservation gain to Greater Sage-Grouse and are durable. 

● Compensatory Mitigation Project Types and Costs 

○ Project types should be identified that help reduce threats to Greater Sage-Grouse (e.g., 

protection, conservation, and restoration projects).

○ Each project type should have a goal and measurable objectives.

○ Each project type should have associated monitoring and maintenance requirements, for 

the duration of the impact.

○ To inform contributions to a mitigation/conservation fund, expected costs for these project 

types (and their monitoring and maintenance), within the WAFWA Management Zone, 

should be identified.

● Compensatory Mitigation Compliance and Monitoring 
288 Worland Approved RMP

○ Mitigation projects should be inspected to ensure they are implemented as designed, and if 

not, there should be methods to enforce compliance.

○ Mitigation projects should be monitored to ensure that the goals and objectives are met and 

that the benefits are effective for the duration of the impact.

● Compensatory Mitigation Reporting 

○ Standardized, transparent, scalable, and scientifically-defensible reporting requirements 

should be identified for mitigation projects.

○ Reports should be compiled, summarized, and reviewed in the WAFWA Management Zone 

in order to determine if Greater Sage-Grouse conservation has been achieved and/or to 

support adaptive management recommendations.

● Compensatory Mitigation Program Implementation Guidelines 

○ Guidelines for implementing the State-level compensatory mitigation program should include 

holding and applying compensatory mitigation funds, operating a transparent and credible 

accounting system, certifying mitigation credits, and managing reporting requirements. 

Incorporating the Regional Mitigation Strategy into NEPA Analyses 

The BLM will include the avoidance, minimization, and compensatory recommendations from 

the Regional Mitigation Strategy in one or more of the NEPA analysis’ alternatives for BLM 

management actions and third party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation and the 

appropriate mitigation actions will be carried forward into the decision.

Implementing a Compensatory Mitigation Program 

The BLM needs to ensure that compensatory mitigation is strategically implemented to provide a 

net conservation gain to the species, as identified in the Regional Mitigation Strategy. In order to 

align with existing compensatory mitigation efforts, this compensatory mitigation program will 

be managed at a State-level (as opposed to a WAFWA Management Zone, or a field office), in 

collaboration with our partners (e.g., federal, tribal, and state agencies). 

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

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

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

selection of the third-party compensatory mitigation administrator will conform to all relevant 

laws, regulations, and policies. The BLM will remain responsible for making decisions that 

affect federal lands.

D.3. COT Objective 2: Implement Targeted Habitat Management 

and Restoration 

Some Greater Sage-Grouse populations warrant more than the amelioration of the 

impacts from stressors to maintain Greater Sage-Grouse on the landscape. In 

these instances, and particularly with impacts resulting from wildfire, it may be 

critical to not only remove or reduce anthropogenic threats to these populations 

but additionally to improve population health through active habitat management 

(e.g., habitat restoration). This is particularly important for those populations that 

are essential to maintaining range-wide redundancy and representation. (COT 

Report, 2013) 

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

COT Objective 2: Implement Targeted Habitat

Management and Restoration September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 289

In many areas of Wyoming, amelioration of threats isn’t enough. Activities must be taken to 

enhance the habitat for continued success of Greater Sage-Grouse. This objective identifies the 

areas where RMPs will put forth the commitments for habitat restoration and enhancement.

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department established local Greater Sage-Grouse working 

groups over 10 years ago. Each of these local working groups developed conservation plans 

which have served to guide conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat at a local level. The 

management objectives for this federal land use plan were developed in coordination with the 

State of Wyoming, recognizing the ongoing work which has been done over the last 10 years in 

Wyoming as a result of the conservation efforts identified by each of the local working groups. 

Upon completion of the planning process, with issuance of an Approved Plan and Record 

of Decision, subsequent implementation decisions will be put into effect by developing 

implementation (activity-level or project-specific) plans. These implementation decisions will 

be based upon the objectives identified in the Approved Plan and Record of Decisions, and 

will be coordinated with local working groups. 

D.4. COT Objective 3: Develop and Implement State and 

Federal Conservation Strategies and Associated Incentive-based 

Conservation Actions and Regulatory Mechanisms

To conserve Greater Sage-Grouse and habitat redundancy, representation, and 

resilience, state and federal agencies, along with interested stakeholders within 

range of the Greater Sage-Grouse should work together to develop a plan, 

including any necessary regulatory or legal tools (or use an existing plan, if 

appropriate) that includes clear mechanisms for addressing the threats to Greater 

Sage-Grouse within PACs. Where consistent with state conservation plans, Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitats outside of PACs should also be addressed. We recognize that 

threats can be ameliorated through a variety of tools within the purview of states 

and federal agencies, including incentive-based conservation actions or regulatory 

mechanisms. Federal land management agencies should work with states in 

developing adequate regulatory mechanisms. Federal land management agencies 

should also contribute to the incentive-based conservation and habitat restoration 

and rehabilitation efforts. In the development of conservation plans, entities 

(states, federal land management agencies, etc.) should coordinate with FWS.This 

will ensure that the plans address the threats contributing to the 2010 warranted 

but precluded determination, and that conservation strategies will meaningfully 

contribute to future listing analyses. (COT Report, 2013) 

D.4.1. Implementation Working Groups

National Level

In December 2011, Wyoming Governor Matt Mead and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar 

co-hosted a meeting to address coordinated conservation of the Greater Sage-Grouse across 

its range. Ten states within the range of the Greater Sage-Grouse were represented, as were 

the U.S. Forest Service (FS), the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and the 

Department of the Interior (DOI) — including representatives from the DOI’s Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The primary outcome of the 

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy

COT Objective 3: Develop and Implement

State and Federal Conservation Strategies and

Associated Incentive-based Conservation Actions

September 2015 and Regulatory Mechanisms
290 Worland Approved RMP

meeting was the creation of a Sage-Grouse Task Force (Task Force) chaired by Governors Mead 

(WY) and Hickenlooper (CO) and the Director of the BLM. The Task Force was directed to 

develop recommendations on how to best advance a coordinated, multi-state, range-wide effort 

to conserve the Greater Sage-Grouse, including the identification of conservation objectives to 

ensure the long-term viability of the species.

Regional Level

Regional Level Teams (Sage Grouse Implementation Group) 

State Level

The Sage Grouse Implementation Team (SGIT) has been established through Wyoming 

Legislature (Wyoming Statute 9-19-101(a)) to review data and make recommendations to the 

Governor of Wyoming regarding actions and funding to enhance and restore Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitats in Wyoming. Additionally, the SGIT is responsible for making recommendations to the 

Governor regarding regulatory actions necessary to maintain Greater Sage-Grouse populations 

and Greater Sage-Grouse habitats. 

Adaptive Management Working Group has been established in consultation with the SGIT 

to provide appropriate guidance for agencies with the ability to affect Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations and/or habitat through their permitting authority. The AMWG includes BLM, FS, 

FWS, and State of Wyoming. 

Local Level

In 2000, a Local Working Group was established by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

to develop and facilitate implementation of local conservation plans for the benefit of Greater 

Sage-Grouse, their habitats, and whenever feasible, other species that use sagebrush habitats. This 

group prepared the Wyoming Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Plan (Wyoming Sage-Grouse 

Working Group 2003) to provide coordinated management and direction across the state. In 

2004, local Greater Sage-Grouse working groups were formed to develop and implement local 

conservation plans. Eight local working groups around Wyoming have completed conservation 

plans, many of which prioritize addressing past, present, and reasonably foreseeable threats at the 

state and local levels, and prescribe management actions for private landowners to improve 

Greater Sage-Grouse conservation at the local scale, consistent with Wyoming’s Core Population 

Area Strategy.

D.4.2. Implementation Tracking

Because the State of Wyoming continues to retain management of the species, and through 

implementation of the Executive Order, BLM Wyoming will continue to coordinate tracking of 

populations, disturbance and conservation actions. 

● DDCT GIS for tracking disturbance 

● Population Counts 

● Lek counts 

● Conservation Actions 

In addition to the tracking databases being maintained by the State of Wyoming, a nationalGreater Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Decision Monitoring and Reporting Tool is being 

developed to describe how the BLM will consistently and systematically monitor and report 

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

Implementation Tracking September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 291

implementation-level activity plans and implementation actions for all plans within the range 

of Greater Sage-Grouse. A description of this tool for collection and reporting of tabular and 

spatially explicit data will be included in the ROD or approved plan. The BLM will provide data 

that can be integrated with other conservation efforts conducted by state and federal partners. 

D.4.3. Public Involvement

A website where the public can quickly and easily access data concerning implementation will 

be developed and kept current on the Wyoming BLM database. Creating this website and 

maintaining it through the implementation cycle will be a vital part of implementation success. 

The public is welcome to provide implementation comments to the BLM any time during the 

cycle, but schedules for implementation planning decisions will be posted so the public can 

make timely comments. All Activity Plan Working Group meetings where recommendations are 

made to the BLM will be open to the public, and will provide for specific and helpful public 

involvement. This includes providing web-based information to the public prior to any Activity 

Plan Working Group meetings; such that members of the public can provide input to the working 

session, both early and mid-way through the scheduled meetings.

The state sponsored LWG and SGIT meetings are advertised and open to the public. 

D.5. COT Objective 4: Proactive Conservation Actions

Proactive, incentive based, voluntary conservation actions (e.g., Candidate 

Conservation Agreements with Assurances, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service programs) should be developed and/or implemented by interested 

stakeholders and closely coordinated across the range of the species to ensure 

they are complimentary and address Greater Sage-Grouse conservation needs and 

threats. These efforts need to receive full funding, including funding for necessary 

personnel. (COT Report, 2013) 

In addition to the conservation activities identified through implementation of the Resource 

Management Plan in coordination with the Local Working Group Conservation Plans, BLM will 

continue to partner with other agencies and stakeholders to identify conservation actions to benefit 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Actions which may occur could include Candidate Conservation 

Agreements (CCAs) with accompanying Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances 

(CCAAs) and designation of conservation easements.

CCAs are entered into when a potential threat to habitat is identified. BLM enters into CCAs 

with USFWS to identify potential threats and plan for conservation measures to address potential 

threats. The purpose of federal CCAs and the accompanying non-federal CCAAs, is to encourage 

conservation actions for species that are not yet listed as threatened or endangered. The goal is 

that enhancements in conservation can preclude the need for federal listing or so that conservation 

can occur before the status of the species has become so dire that listing is necessary. Although a 

single property owner's activities may not eliminate the need to list, conservation, if conducted by 

enough property owners throughout the species' range, can eliminate the need to list. 

The BLM will work with partners and stakeholders to develop species-specific or ecosystem-based 

conservation strategies and will work cooperatively with other agencies, organizations, 

governments, and interested parties for the conservation of sensitive species and their habitats

to meet agreed on species and habitat management goals. Cooperative efforts are important 

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy

September 2015 Public Involvement
292 Worland Approved RMP

for conservation based on an ecosystem management approach and will improve efficiency by 

combining efforts and fostering collaborative working relationships. 

Conservation Easements are identified private lands with Greater Sage-Grouse habitat where the 

private landowners enter into voluntary agreements with the government to give up developmental 

rights which may adversely affect habitat. The most common way these areas may be used in 

Wyoming is for mitigation banks. Allowing development within some areas of historic Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat or marginal habitat will require appropriate mitigation. In some cases the 

most appropriate mitigation may be for project proponents to buy credits at a conservation 

easement, thus creating a mitigation bank. Overall, the benefit is to the Greater Sage-Grouse, 

as it reduces the overall potential for fragmented habitat by ensuring there are areas with no 

development potential which could adversely affect the viability of the species.

To learn more about what CCAs and CCAAs are in place for Greater Sage-grouse, please see 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife website: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06W

Sweetwater River Conservancy Habitat Conservation Bank

The Sweetwater River Conservancy Habitat Conservation Bank is the first conservation bank 

established for Greater Sage-Grouse. Located in central Wyoming, the bank manages habitat for 

Greater Sage-Grouse allowing energy development and other activities to proceed on other lands 

within Wyoming. A conservation bank is a site or suite of sites established under an agreement 

with the USFWS, intended to protect, and improve habitat for species. Credits may be purchased 

which result in perpetual conservation easements and conservation projects on the land to offset 

impacts occurring elsewhere. The Sweetwater River Conservancy Habitat Conservation Bank 

launched with 55,000 deeded acres of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, and could expand up to 

700,000 acres on other lands owned by the Sweetwater River Conservancy contingent upon 

demand (USFWS 2015). 

Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative 

The Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative is a long-term science based effort to assess 

and enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitats at a landscape scale in southwest Wyoming, while 

facilitating responsible development through local collaboration and partnership. Collaborative 

efforts address multiple concerns at a scale that considers all activities on the landscape,

and can leverage resources that might not be available for single agency projects. Greater 

Sage-Grouse initiatives from the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative have included 

habitat enhancement efforts (e.g., invasive weed treatment, prescribed grazing strategies), and 

Greater Sage-Grouse research studies (Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative 2013).

Powder River Basin Restoration Program 

The Powder River Basin Restoration Program is a collaborative partnership to restore and 

enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitat on a landscape level in the Powder River Basin. The basin 

encompasses 13,493,840 acres in northeast Wyoming and southeast Montana. Surface ownership 

is composed of approximately 70 percent private lands, 14 percent BLM-administered lands 

(including 8 percent in Wyoming and 6 percent in Montana), 8 percent Forest Service lands, and 

8 percent States of Wyoming and Montana lands. Subsurface mineral ownership is 50 to 60 

percent federal (BLM 2014). 

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

COT Objective 4: Proactive Conservation Actions September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 293

The Powder River Basin Restoration Program is focusing on areas affected by the federal oil and 

gas development that has occurred over the past decade in the Powder River Basin in northeastern 

Wyoming. Its objectives are restoring or enhancing disturbed previously suitable habitat to 

suitable habitat for sagebrush obligate species, primarily Greater Sage-Grouse. This includes 

multiple sites affected by coal bed natural gas abandonment reclamation efforts, wildfires, and 

noxious and invasive plants. Priority will be given to those areas recognized as priority habitats 

(e.g., PHMAs).

Habitat objectives are meeting the needs for nesting, brood-rearing, and late brood-rearing. The 

program would contribute to efforts focused on the management and control of mosquitoes 

carrying West Nile virus and would include funding, labor, treatment locations, and other needs 

as determined.

Additionally, efforts would be coordinated to reduce fuels in and near Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat, to enhance sagebrush stands, support restoration efforts, and reduce the risk of 

high-severity wildfire. Pine stands and juniper woodlands would be managed for structural 

diversity and to reduce fuels, especially near PHMA, human developments, and recreation areas.

Natural Resource Conservation Service Sage Grouse Initiative

The US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Sage-Grouse 

Initiative (SGI) is working with private landowners in 11 western states to improve habitat for 

Greater Sage-Grouse (Manier et al. 2013). With 13.5 million acres of Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat in private ownership within MZ II/VII (Manier et al. 2013, p. 118), a unique opportunity 

exists for the Natural Resources Conservation Service to benefit Greater Sage-Grouse and to 

ensure the persistence of large and intact rangelands by implementing the SGI.

Participation in the SGI program is voluntary, but willing participants enter into binding contracts 

or easements to ensure that conservation practices that enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, 

such as fence marking, protecting riparian areas, and maintaining vegetation in nesting areas,

are implemented. Participating landowners are bound by a contract (usually 3 to 5 years) to 

implement, in consultation with Natural Resources Conservation Service staff, conservation 

practices if they wish to receive the financial incentives offered by the SGI. These financial 

incentives generally take the form of payments to offset costs of implementing conservation 

practices and easements or rental payments for long-term conservation. 

While potentially effective at conserving Greater Sage-Grouse populations and habitat on private 

lands, incentive-based conservation programs that fund the SGI generally require reauthorization 

from Congress under subsequent farm bills, meaning future funding is not guaranteed. 

D.6. COT Objective 5: Development of Monitoring Plans

A robust range-wide monitoring program must be developed and implemented 

for Greater Sage-Grouse conservation plans, which recognizes and incorporates 

individual state approaches. A monitoring program is necessary to track the 

success of conservation plans and proactive conservation activities. Without this 

information, the actual benefit of conservation activities cannot be measured and 

there is no capacity to adapt if current management actions are determined to be 

ineffective. (COT Report, 2013) 

September 2015

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy 

COT Objective 5: Development of Monitoring Plans
294 Worland Approved RMP

D.6.1. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

D.6.2. Introduction

The purpose of this Greater Sage-grouse Monitoring Framework (hereafter, monitoring 

framework) is to describe the methods to monitor habitats and evaluate the implementation and 

effectiveness of the BLM planning strategy (BLM IM 2012-044) to conserve the species and its 

habitat. The regulations for the BLM (43 CFR 1610.4-9) require that land use plans establish 

intervals and standards, as appropriate, for monitoring and evaluations, based on the sensitivity of 

the resource to the decisions involved. Therefore, BLM will use the methods described herein to 

collect monitoring data to evaluate implementation and effectiveness of the Greater Sage-Grouse 

(hereafter, Greater Sage-Grouse) planning strategy and the conservation measures contained in 

land use plans. The type of monitoring data to be collected at the land use plan scale will be 

described in the monitoring plan which will be developed after the signing of the ROD. For a 

summary of the frequency of reporting see Attachment A. Adaptive management will be informed 

by data collected at any and all scales.

To ensure the BLM has the ability to make consistent assessments about Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitats across the range of the species, this framework lays out the methodology for monitoring 

the implementation and evaluating the effectiveness of BLM actions to conserve the species and 

its habitat through monitoring that informs effectiveness at multiple scales. Monitoring efforts 

will include data for measurable quantitative indicators of sagebrush availability, anthropogenic 

disturbance levels, and sagebrush conditions. Implementation monitoring results will provide 

information to allow the BLM to evaluate the extent that decisions from the Worland Approved 

RMP to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat have been implemented. Population 

monitoring information will be collected by state fish and wildlife agencies and will be 

incorporated into effectiveness monitoring as it is made available.

This multi-scale monitoring approach is necessary as Greater Sage-Grouse are a landscape species 

and conservation is scale-dependent whereby conservation actions are implemented within 

seasonal habitats to benefit populations. The four orders of habitat selection (Johnson 1980) used 

in this monitoring framework are described by Connelly et al. (2003) and Stiver et al. (2014) 

as first order (broad scale), second order (mid-scale), third order (fine scale), and fourth order 

(site scale) to apply them to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat selection. The various scales may show 

differences because of the methods used. The broad and mid-scale may provide a generalize 

direction, however the suitability baseline (pre-euro) is not considered an accurate baseline. The 

current baseline will provide better information on trends provided the data used in the analysis 

is sound. Based upon the management actions related to the BLM and Wyoming SGEO, the 

broad and mid-scale may greatly underestimate the impacts of the threats outlined in the COT 

report. Habitat selection and habitat use by Greater Sage-Grouse occurs at multiple scales and

is driven by multiple environmental and behavioral factors. Managing and monitoring Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitats are complicated by the differences in habitat selection across the range and 

habitat utilization by individual birds within a given season. Therefore, the tendency to look at a 

single indicator of habitat suitability or only one scale limits the ability for managers to identify 

the threats to Greater Sage-Grouse and to respond at the appropriate scale. For descriptions 

of these habitat suitability indicators for each scale, see the Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment 

Framework (HAF; Stiver et al. 2015). 

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 295

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy

September 2015 Introduction

Monitoring methods and indicators in this monitoring framework are derived from the current 

peer-reviewed science. Range wide best-available datasets for broad and mid-scale monitoring 

will be acquired. If these exiting datasets are not readily available or are inadequate, but

are necessary to effectively inform the three measurable quantitative indicators (sagebrush 

availability, anthropogenic disturbance levels, and sagebrush conditions), the BLM will strive 

to develop datasets or obtain information to fill these data gaps. Datasets that are not readily 

available to inform the fine and site scale indicators will be developed. These data will be used 

to generate monitoring reports at the appropriate and applicable geographic scales, boundaries 

and analysis units: across the range of Greater Sage-Grouse as defined by Schroeder et al. 

(2004), and clipped by WAFWA Management Zone (MZ) (Stiver et al. 2006) boundaries and 

other areas as appropriate for size (e.g., populations based on Connelly et al. 2004; Figure D.11, 

“Greater Sage-Grouse Range, Populations, Subpopulations and Priority Areas for Conservation 

as of 2013” (p. )). This broad and mid-scale monitoring data and analysis will provide context 

for RMP/LMP areas; states; Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat, General Habitat and other 

Greater Sage-Grouse designated management areas; and Priority Areas for Conservation(PACs)

as defined in the Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Objectives: Final Report (COT, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2013). Throughout the remainder of the document, all of these areas will be 

referred to as “Greater Sage-Grouse areas”.
296 Worland Approved RMP

Figure D.11. Greater Sage-Grouse Range, Populations, Subpopulations and Priority Areas 

for Conservation as of 2013 

This monitoring framework is divided into two sections. The broad- and mid-scale methods, 

described in Section D.6.3, “Broad and Mid-Scales” (p. 298), provide a consistent approach 

across the range of the species to monitor implementation decisions and actions, mid-scale habitat 

attributes (e.g., sagebrush availability and habitat degradation), and population changes to 

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

Introduction September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 297

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy

September 2015 Introduction

determine the effectiveness of the planning strategy and management decisions. (See Table D.3,

“Indicators for Monitoring Implementation of the Strategy, Decisions, Greater Sage-Grouse

Habitat, and Greater Sage- Grouse Populations at the Broad and Mid-scales” (p. 297), Indicators 

for monitoring implementation of the national planning strategy, RMP decisions, Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat, and Greater Sage-Grouse populations at the broad and mid-scales.) For 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat at the fine and site scales, described in Section D.6.4, “Fine and Site

Scales” (p. 321), this monitoring framework describes a consistent approach (e.g., indicators and 

methods) for monitoring Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal habitats. Funding, support, and dedicated 

personnel for broad- and mid-scale monitoring will be renewed annually through the normal 

budget process. For an overview of BLM multiscale monitoring commitments, see Attachment A. 

Table D.3. Indicators for Monitoring Implementation of the Strategy, Decisions, Greater 

Sage-Grouse Habitat, and Greater Sage- Grouse Populations at the Broad and Mid-scales

Implementation Habitat Population (State 

Wildlife Agencies)

Geographic Scales Availability Degradation Demographics

Broad Scale: 

From the range of

Greater Sage-Grouse 

to WAFWA

Management Zones

BLM Planning 

Strategy goal and 

objectives

Distribution and 

amount of sagebrush 

within the range

Distribution 

and amount of 

energy, mining

and infrastructure 

facilities

WAFWA

Management Zone 

population trend

Mid-scale: 

From WAFWA

Management Zone 

to populations

An analysis of RMP 

decisions across the 

designated scale

Mid-scale habitat 

indicators (HAF 2014; 

Table 2, e.g., percent 

of sagebrush per unit 

area)

Distribution 

and amount of 

energy, mining

and infrastructure 

facilities (Table 2)*

Individual population 

trend

Fine Scale: 

Pacs 

A summary of DDCT 

actions related to 

BLM mineral and 

surface resources in 

conjunction withother 

ownerships

Areas that have 

greater than 5% 

sagebrush cover 

and non-habitat 

(unsuitable) that is 

less than 0.6 mile 

from the suitable 

habitat.

Distribution 

and amount of 

anthropogenic

disturbances and 

wildfire occurrences 

impacting specific 

PACs

PAC Trends

Site Scale: 

DDCT level

A summary of DDCT 

actions related to 

BLM mineral and 

surface resources

The available 

occupied habitat using 

the DDCT process

Distribution 

and amount of 

anthropogenic

disturbances and 

wildfire occurrences 

impacting specific 

PACs

Individual lek Trends

Broad Scale: 

From the range of

Greater Sage-Grouse 

to WAFWA

Management Zones

BLM Planning 

Strategy goal and 

objectives

Distribution and 

amount of sagebrush 

within the range

Distribution 

and amount of 

energy, mining

and infrastructure 

facilities

WAFWA

Management Zone 

population trend

Mid-scale: 

From WAFWA

Management Zone 

to populations; PACs

RMP decisions Mid-scale habitat

indicators (HAF 2014; 

Table 2, e.g., percent 

of sagebrush per unit 

area)

Distribution 

and amount of 

energy, mining

and infrastructure 

facilities (Table 2)*

Individual population 

trend
298 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

Broad and Mid-Scales September 2015

D.6.3. Broad and Mid-Scales

First-order habitat selection, the broad scale, describes the physical or geographical range of a 

species. The first-order habitat of the Greater Sage-Grouse is defined by populations of Greater 

Sage-Grouse associated with sagebrush landscapes, based on Schroeder et al. 2004, and Connelly 

et al. 2004, and on population or habitat surveys since 2004. An intermediate scale between the 

broad and mid-scales was delineated by WAFWA from floristic provinces within which similar 

environmental factors influence vegetation communities. This scale is referred to as the WAFWA 

Sage-Grouse Management Zones (MZs). Although no indicators are specific to this scale, these 

MZs are biologically meaningful as reporting units.

Second-order habitat selection, the mid-scale, includes Greater Sage-Grouse populations and 

PACs. The second order includes at least 40 discrete populations and subpopulations (Connelly et 

al. 2004). Populations range in area from 150 to 60,000 mi2 and are nested within MZs. PACs 

range from 20 to 20,400 mi2 and are nested within population areas. 

Other mid-scale landscape indicators, such as patch size and number, patch connectivity, linkage 

areas, and landscape matrix and edge effects (Stiver et al. 2015) will also be assessed. The 

methods used to calculate these metrics will be derived from existing literature (Knick et al. 2011, 

Leu and Hanser 2011, Knick and Hanser 2011). 

Midscale indicators using the HAF can grossly underestimate the occupation of anthropogenic 

activities because of the use of 30m pixels (page Table II – X). The HAF removes ‘non’habitat 

from the suitability availability. There are no parameters that are provided to protect adjacent 

suitable habitat from development on these nonhabitat parcels, thus making the adjacent 

nonhabitat a potential threat by indirect impacts.

The Wyoming BLM Field Offices will be actively participating in a fine and site scale monitoring 

that will more accurately reflect the impacts associated with direct and indirect effects of 

anthropogenic and wildfire impacts.

D.6.3.1. Implementation (Decision) Monitoring

Implementation monitoring is the process of tracking and documenting the implementation (or 

the progress toward implementation) of RMP decisions. The BLM will monitor implementation 

of project-level and/or site-specific actions and authorizations, with their associated conditions of 

approval/stipulations for Greater Sage-Grouse, spatially (as appropriate) within Priority Habitat, 

General Habitat, and other Greater Sage-Grouse designated management areas, at a minimum, 

for the Bighorn Basin Planning Area. These actions and authorizations, as well as progress 

toward completing and implementing activity-level plans, will be monitored consistently across 

all planning units and will be reported to BLM headquarters annually, as well as reported to the 

State of Wyoming with numerical and spatial data twice a year, and a HQ summary report every 

5 years, for the Bighorn Basin Planning Area. A national-level Greater Sage-grouse Land Use 

Plan Decision Monitoring and Reporting Tool is being developed to describe how the BLM

will consistently and systematically monitor and report implementation-level activity plans and 

implementation actions for all plans within the range of Greater Sage-Grouse. A description of 

this tool for collection and reporting of tabular and spatially explicit data will be included in the 

Record of Decision or approved plan. The BLM will provide data that can be integrated with 

other conservation efforts conducted by state and federal partners. 
Worland Approved RMP 299

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy 

September 2015 Broad and Mid-Scales

D.6.3.2. Habitat (Vegetation) Monitoring

The USFWS, in its 2010 listing decision for the Greater Sage-Grouse, identified 18 threats 

contributing to the destruction, modification, or curtailment of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat or 

range (75 FR 13910 2010). The BLM will, therefore, monitor the relative extent of these threats 

that remove sagebrush, both spatially and temporally, on all lands within an analysis area, and 

will report on amount, pattern, and condition at the appropriate and applicable geographic scales 

and boundaries. These 18 threats have been aggregated into three broad- and mid-scale measures 

to account for whether the threat predominantly removes sagebrush or degrades habitat. (See

Table D.4, “Relationship between the 18 Threats and the 3 Habitat Disturbance Measures for

Monitoring” (p. 299)) The three measures are:

1. Sagebrush Availability (percent of sagebrush per suitable unit area)

2. Habitat Degradation (percent of human activity per unit area)

3. Energy and Mining Density (facilities and locations per suitable unit area)

These three habitat disturbance measures will evaluate disturbance on all lands within priority 

habitat, regardless of land ownership. The direct area of influence will be assessed with the 

goal of accounting for actual removal of sagebrush on which Greater Sage-Grouse depend 

(Connelly et al. 2000) and for habitat degradation as a surrogate for human activity. Measure 

1 (sagebrush availability) examines where disturbances have removed plant communities 

that support sagebrush (or have broadly removed sagebrush from the landscape). Measure 1, 

therefore, monitors the change in sagebrush availability–or, specifically, where and how much of 

the sagebrush community is available on lands that can support sagebrush within the range of 

Greater Sage-Grouse. The sagebrush community is defined as the ecological systems that have the 

capability of supporting sagebrush vegetation and seasonal Greater Sage-Grouse habitats within 

the range of Greater Sage-Grouse (see Section D.6.3.2.1, “Sagebrush Availability (Measure

1)” (p. 300)). Measure 2 (see Section D.6.3.2.2, “Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure

2)” (p. 311)) and Measure 3 (see Section D.6.3.2.3, “Energy and Mining Density (Measure

3)” (p. 315)) focus on where habitat degradation is occurring within suitable sagebrush soils by 

using the footprint/area of direct disturbance and the number of facilities at the mid-scale to

identify the relative amount of degradation per geographic area of interest and in areas that have 

the capability of supporting sagebrush and seasonal Greater Sage-Grouse use. Measure 2 (habitat 

degradation) not only quantifies footprint/area of direct disturbance but also establishes a surrogate 

for those threats most likely to have ongoing activity. Because energy development and mining 

activities are typically the most intensive activities in sagebrush habitat, Measure 3 (the density of 

active energy development, production, and mining sites) will help identify areas of particular 

concern for such factors as noise, dust, traffic, etc., that degrade Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.

Table D.4. Relationship between the 18 Threats and the 3 Habitat Disturbance Measures 

for Monitoring

FWS Listing Decision 

Threat Sagebrush Availability Habitat Degradation Density of Energy and Mining

Agriculture X

Urbanization X

Wildfire X

Conifer encroachment X

Treatments X

Invasive Species X
300 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

Broad and Mid-Scales September 2015

FWS Listing Decision 

Threat Sagebrush Availability Habitat Degradation Density of Energy and Mining

Energy (oil and gas wells 

and development facilities)

X X

Energy (coal mines) X X

Energy (wind towers) X X

Energy (solar fields) X X

Energy (geothermal) X X

Mining (active locatable, 

leasable, and salable 

developments)

X X

Infrastructure (roads) X

Infrastructure (railroads) X

Infrastructure (power lines) X

Infrastructure 

(communication towers)

X

Infrastructure (other vertical 

structures)

X

Other developed rights of 

ways

X

Note: Data availability may preclude specific analysis of individual layers. See the detailed methodology for 

more information.

The methods to monitor disturbance found herein differ slightly from methods used in the 

Sage-Grouse Baseline Environmental Report (BER; Manier et al. 2013) that provided a baseline 

of datasets of disturbance across jurisdictions. One difference is that, for some threats, the data 

in the BER were for federal lands only. In addition, threats were assessed individually in that 

report, using different assumptions from those in this monitoring framework about how to 

quantify the location and magnitude of threats. The methodology herein builds on the BER 

methodology and identifies datasets and procedures to utilize the best available data across the 

range of the Greater Sage-Grouse and to formulate a consistent approach to quantify impact of the 

threats through time. This methodology also describes an approach to combine the threats and 

calculate the three measures.

D.6.3.2.1. Sagebrush Availability (Measure 1)

Greater Sage-Grouse populations have been found to be more resilient where a percentage of the 

landscape is maintained in sagebrush (Knick and Connelly 2011), which will be determined by 

sagebrush availability. Measure 1 has been divided into two sub measures to describe sagebrush 

availability on the landscape: 

● Measure 1a: the current amount of sagebrush on the geographic area of interest, and

● Measure 1b: the amount of sagebrush on the geographic area of interest compared with the 

amount of sagebrush the landscape of interest could ecologically support. 

Measure 1a (the current amount of sagebrush on the landscape) will be calculated using this 

formula: [the existing updated sagebrush layer] divided by [the geographic area of interest]. 

The appropriate geographic areas of interest for sagebrush availability include the species’ 

range, WAFWA MZs, populations, and PACs. In some cases these Greater Sage-Grouse areas 

will need to be aggregated to provide an estimate of sagebrush availability with an acceptable 

level of accuracy.
Worland Approved RMP 301

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy 

September 2015 Broad and Mid-Scales

Measure 1b (the amount of sagebrush for context within the geographic area of interest) will 

be calculated using this formula: [existing sagebrush divided by [pre-EuroAmerican settlement 

geographic extent of lands that could have supported sagebrush]. This measure will provide 

information to set the context for a given geographic area of interest during evaluations of 

monitoring data. The information could also be used to inform management options for 

restoration or mitigation and to inform effectiveness monitoring.

The sagebrush base layer for Measure 1 will be based on geospatial vegetation data adjusted for 

the threats listed in Table D.4, “Relationship between the 18 Threats and the 3 Habitat Disturbance

Measures for Monitoring” (p. 299). The following subsections of this monitoring framework 

describe the methodology for determining both the current availability of sagebrush on the 

landscape and the context of the amount of sagebrush on the landscape at the broad and mid-scales.

D.6.3.2.1.1. Establishing the Sagebrush Base Layer 

The current geographic extent of sagebrush vegetation within the rangewide distribution of 

Greater Sage-Grouse populations will be ascertained using the most recent version of the Existing 

Vegetation Type (EVT) layer in LANDFIRE (2013). LANDFIRE EVT was selected to serve as 

the sagebrush base layer for five reasons: 1) it is the only nationally consistent vegetation layer 

that has been updated multiple times since 2001; 2) the ecological systems classification within 

LANDFIRE EVT includes multiple sagebrush type classes that, when aggregated, provide a 

more accurate (compared with individual classes) and seamless sagebrush base layer across 

jurisdictional boundaries; 3) LANDFIRE performed a rigorous accuracy assessment from which 

to derive the rangewide uncertainty of the sagebrush base layer; 4) LANDFIRE is consistently 

used in several recent analyses of sagebrush habitats (Knick et al. 2011, Leu and Hanser 2011, 

Knick and Hanser 2011); and 5) LANDFIRE EVT can be compared against the geographic 

extent of lands that are believed to have had the capability of supporting sagebrush vegetation 

pre-EuroAmerican settlement [LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting (BpS)]. This fifth reason 

provides a reference point for understanding how much sagebrush currently remains in a defined 

geographic area of interest compared with how much sagebrush existed historically (Measure 1b). 

Therefore, the BLM has determined that LANDFIRE provides the best available data at broad 

and mid-scales to serve as a sagebrush base layer for monitoring changes in the geographic 

extent of sagebrush. The BLM, in addition to aggregating the sagebrush types into the sagebrush 

base layer, will aggregate the accuracy assessment reports from LANDFIRE to document the 

cumulative accuracy for the sagebrush base layer. The BLM―through its Assessment, Inventory, 

and Monitoring (AIM) program and, specifically, the BLM’s landscape monitoring framework 

(Taylor et al. 2014)―will provide field data to the LANDFIRE program to support continuous 

quality improvements of the LANDFIRE EVT layer. The sagebrush layer based on LANDFIRE 

EVT will allow for the mid-scale estimation of the existing percent of sagebrush across a variety 

of reporting units. This sagebrush base layer will be adjusted by changes in land cover and 

successful restoration for future calculations of sagebrush availability (Measures 1a and 1b). 

This layer will also be used to determine the trend in other landscape indicators, such as patch size 

and number, patch connectivity, linkage areas, and landscape matrix and edge effects (Stiver et al. 

2015). In the future, changes in sagebrush availability, generated annually, will be included in the 

sagebrush base layer. The landscape metrics will be recalculated to examine changes in pattern 

and abundance of sagebrush at the various geographic boundaries. This information will be 

included in effectiveness monitoring (See Section D.6.3.4, “Effectiveness Monitoring” (p. 317)).
302 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

Broad and Mid-Scales September 2015

Within the BLM, field office-wide existing vegetation classification mapping and inventories are 

available that provide a much finer level of data than what is provided through LANDFIRE. 

Where available, these finer-scale products will be useful for additional and complementary 

mid-scale indicators and local-scale analyses (see Section D.6.4, “Fine and Site Scales” (p. 321)). 

The fact that these products are not available everywhere limits their utility for monitoring at the 

broad and mid-scale, where consistency of data products is necessary across broader geographies.

The sagebrush layer based on LANDFIRE EVT will allow for the mid-scale estimation of 

existing percent sagebrush across a variety of reporting units. This sagebrush base layer will be 

adjusted by changes in land cover and successful restoration for future calculations of sagebrush 

availability (Measures 1a and 1b). 

This layer will be used to determine the trend in other landscape indicators, e.g., patch size and 

number, patch connectivity, linkage areas, and landscape matrix and edge effects (Stiver et al. 

2015). In the future, changes in sagebrush availability, generated bi-annually, will be included in 

the sagebrush base layer. The landscape metrics will be recalculated to examine changes in pattern 

and abundance of sagebrush at the various geographic boundaries. This information will be 

included in effectiveness monitoring (See Section D.6.3.4, “Effectiveness Monitoring” (p. 317)).

Data Sources for Establishing and Monitoring Sagebrush Availability 

In much the same manner as how the LANDFIRE data was selected as the data source, described 

above, the criteria for selecting the datasets (Table D.5, “Datasets for Establishing and Monitoring

Changes in Sagebrush Availability” (p. 302)) for establishing and monitoring the change in 

sagebrush availability, Measure 1, were threefold: 

● Nationally consistent dataset available across the range

● Known level of confidence or accuracy in the dataset

● Continual maintenance of dataset and known update interval

Table D.5. Datasets for Establishing and Monitoring Changes in Sagebrush Availability 

Dataset Source Update Interval Most Recent Version 

Year Use

BioPhysical Setting 

(BpS) v1.1

LANDFIRE Static 2008 Denominator for 

sagebrush availability 

(1.b.)

Existing Vegetation 

Type (EVT) v1.2

LANDFIRE Static 2010 Numerator for 

sagebrush availability

Cropland Data Layer 

(CDL)

National Agricultural 

Statistics Service 

(NASS)

Annual 2012 Agricultural Updates; 

removes existing 

sagebrush from 

numerator of 

sagebrush availability

National Land 

Cover Dataset 

(NLCD) Percent 

Imperviousness

Multi-Resolution 

Land Characteristics 

Consortium

5 Year 2011 available in

March 2014

Urban Area Updates; 

removes existing 

sagebrush from 

numerator of 

sagebrush availability
Worland Approved RMP 303

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy 

September 2015 Broad and Mid-Scales

Dataset Source Update Interval Most Recent Version 

Year Use

Fire Perimeters GeoMac Annual 2013 < 1,000 acres Fire 

updates; removes 

existing sagebrush 

from numerator of 

sagebrush availability

Burn Severity Monitoring Trends 

in Burn Severity 

(MTBS)

Annual 2012 available in

April 2014

> 1,000 acres Fire 

Updates; removes 

existing sagebrush 

from numerator of 

sagebrush availability 

except for unburned 

sagebrush islands

LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type (EVT) Version 1.2 

LANDFIRE EVT represents existing vegetation types on the landscape derived from remote 

sensing data. Initial mapping was conducted using imagery collected in approximately 2001. 

Since the initial mapping there have been two update efforts: version 1.1 represents changes 

before 2008, and version 1.2 reflects changes on the landscape before 2010. Version 1.2 will be 

used as the starting point to develop the sagebrush base layer. 

Ecological systems from the LANDFIRE EVT to be used in the sagebrush base layer were 

determined by Greater Sage-Grouse subject matter experts through the identification of the 

ecological systems that have the capability of supporting sagebrush vegetation and could provide 

suitable seasonal habitat for the Greater Sage-Grouse (Table D.6, “Ecological Systems in BpS and

EVT Capable of Supporting Sagebrush Vegetation and Could Provide Suitable Seasonal Habitat

for Greater Sage-Grouse” (p. 303)). Two additional vegetation types that are not ecological 

systems were added to the EVT and are Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance 

and Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance. These alliances have species composition directly 

related to the Rocky Mountain Lower Montane - Foothill Shrubland ecological system and the 

Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland ecological system, both of which are 

ecological systems in LANDFIRE BpS. In LANDFIRE EVT however, in some map zones, the 

Rocky Mountain Lower Montane - Foothill Shrubland ecological system and the Rocky Mountain 

Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland ecological system were named Artemisia tridentata ssp. 

vaseyana Shrubland Alliance and Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance respectively.

Table D.6. Ecological Systems in BpS and EVT Capable of Supporting Sagebrush Vegetation 

and Could Provide Suitable Seasonal Habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse

Ecological System Sagebrush Vegetation that the Ecological System 

has the Capability to Produce

Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba 

Artemisia bigelovii

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia frigida

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Columbia Plateau Scabland Shrubland Artemisia rigida

Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longicaulis 

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba 

Artemisia nova

Artemisia frigida

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis
304 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

Broad and Mid-Scales September 2015

Ecological System Sagebrush Vegetation that the Ecological System 

has the Capability to Produce

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. xericensis 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia spinescens

Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba 

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia tripartita ssp. rupicola

Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba 

Artemisia nova

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe Artemisia cana ssp. cana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. xericensis

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia tripartita ssp. tripartita 

Artemisia frigida

Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia nova

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia tridentata ssp. spiciformis

Northwestern Great Plains Mixed grass Prairie Artemisia cana ssp. cana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia frigida

Northwestern Great Plains Shrubland Artemisia cana ssp. cana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Western Great Plains Sand Prairie Artemisia cana ssp. cana

Western Great Plains Floodplain Systems Artemisia cana ssp. cana

Columbia Plateau Steppe and Grassland Artemisia spp.

Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia bigelovii

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia frigida

Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland Artemisia tridentata

Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-Leaf Mountain Mahogany 

Woodland and Shrubland

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Shrubland Alliance (EVT only)

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance (EVT only) Artemisia tridentate

Accuracy and Appropriate Use of LANDFIRE Datasets 

Because of concerns over the thematic accuracy of individual classes mapped by LANDFIRE, 

all ecological systems listed in Table D.6, “Ecological Systems in BpS and EVT Capable of

Supporting Sagebrush Vegetation and Could Provide Suitable Seasonal Habitat for Greater

Sage-Grouse” (p. 303) will be merged into one value that represents the sagebrush base layer. 
Worland Approved RMP 305

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy 

September 2015 Broad and Mid-Scales

With all ecological systems aggregated, the combined accuracy of the sagebrush base layer (EVT) 

will be much greater than if all categories were treated separately.

LANDFIRE performed the original accuracy assessment of their EVT product on a map zone 

basis. There are 20 LANDFIRE map zones that cover the historic range of Greater Sage-Grouse 

as defined by Schroeder (2004). Attachment C, Table D.9, “User and Producer Accuracies for

Aggregated Ecological Systems within LANDFIRE Map Zones” (p. 329), lists the user and 

producer accuracies for the aggregated ecological systems that make up the sagebrush base 

layer and also defines user and producer accuracies. The aggregated sagebrush base layer for 

monitoring had producer accuracies ranging from 56.7% to 100% and user accuracies ranging 

from 57.1% to 85.7%. 

LANDFIRE EVT data are not designed to be used at a local level. In reports of the percent 

sagebrush statistic for the various reporting units (Measure 1a), the uncertainty of the percent 

sagebrush will increase as the size of the reporting unit gets smaller. LANDFIRE data should 

never be used at the 30m pixel level (900m2 resolution of raster data) for any reporting. The 

smallest geographic extent for using the data to determine percent sagebrush is at the PAC level; 

for the smallest PACs, the initial percent sagebrush estimate will have greater uncertainties 

compared with the much larger PACs. 

Agricultural Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

The dataset for the geographic extent of agricultural lands will come from the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Cropland Data Layer (CDL) (http://www.nass.usda.gov/

research/Cropland/Release/index.htm). CDL data are generated annually, with estimated 

producer accuracies for “large area row crops ranging from the mid 80% to mid-90%,” depending 

on the state (http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/sarsfaqs2.htm#Section3_18.0).

Specific information on accuracy may be found on the NASS metadata website 

(http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/metadata/meta.htm). CDL provided the only 

dataset that matches the three criteria (nationally consistent, known level of accuracy, and 

periodically updated) for use in this monitoring framework and represents the best available 

agricultural lands mapping product. 

The CDL data contain both agricultural classes and nonagricultural classes. For this effort, and in 

the baseline environmental report (Manier et al. 2013), nonagricultural classes were removed 

from the original dataset. The excluded classes are:

● Barren (65 & 131), Deciduous Forest (141), Developed/High Intensity (124), Developed/Low 

Intensity (122), Developed/Med Intensity (123), Developed/Open Space (121), Evergreen 

Forest (142), Grassland Herbaceous (171), Herbaceous Wetlands (195), Mixed Forest (143), 

Open Water (83 & 111), Other Hay/Non Alfalfa (37), Pasture/Hay (181), Pasture/Grass (62), 

Perennial Ice/Snow (112), Shrubland (64 & 152), Woody Wetlands (190). 

The rule set for adjusting the sagebrush base layer for agricultural lands (and for updating the 

base layer for agricultural lands in the future) is that once an area is classified as agriculture in any 

year of the CDL, those pixels will remain out of the sagebrush base layer even if a new version of 

the CDL classifies that pixel as one of the nonagricultural classes listed above. The assumption 

is that even though individual pixels may be classified as a nonagricultural class in any given 

year, the pixel has not necessarily been restored to a natural sagebrush community that would be 

included in Table D.6, “Ecological Systems in BpS and EVT Capable of Supporting Sagebrush

Vegetation and Could Provide Suitable Seasonal Habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse” (p. 303). A 
306 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

Broad and Mid-Scales September 2015

further assumption is that once an area has moved into agricultural use, it is unlikely that the area 

would be restored to sagebrush. Should that occur, however, the method and criteria for adding 

pixels back into the sagebrush base layer would follow those found in the sagebrush restoration 

monitoring section of this monitoring framework. 

Urban Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

The National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) Percent Imperviousness was selected as the best 

available dataset to be used for urban updates. These data are generated on a five-year cycle and 

specifically designed to support monitoring efforts. Other datasets were evaluated and lacked 

the spatial specificity that was captured in the NLCD product. Any new impervious pixel will 

be removed from the sagebrush base layer during the update process. Although the impervious 

surface layer includes a number of impervious pixels outside of urban areas, there are two reasons 

why this is acceptable for this process. First, an evaluation of national urban area datasets did not 

reveal a layer that could be confidently used in conjunction with the NLCD product to screen 

impervious pixels outside of urban zones because unincorporated urban areas were not being 

included thus leaving large chunks of urban pixels unaccounted for in this rule set. Secondly, 

experimentation with setting a threshold on the percent imperviousness layer that would isolate 

rural features proved to be unsuccessful. No combination of values could be identified that would 

result in the consistent ability to limit impervious pixels outside urban areas. Therefore, to ensure 

consistency in the monitoring estimates, it was determined to include all impervious pixels.

Fire Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

Two datasets were selected for performing fire adjustments and updates: GeoMac fire perimeters 

and Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS). An existing data standard in the BLM requires 

that all fires of more than 10 acres are to be reported to GeoMac; therefore, there will be many 

small fires of less than 10 acres that will not be accounted for in the adjustment and monitoring 

attributable to fire. Using fire perimeters from GeoMac, all sagebrush pixels falling within the 

perimeter of fires less than 1,000 acres will be used to adjust and monitor the sagebrush base layer.

For fires greater than 1,000 acres, MTBS was selected as a means to account for unburned 

sagebrush islands during the update process of the sagebrush base layer. The MTBS program 

(http://www.mtbs.gov) is an ongoing, multiyear project to map fire severity and fire perimeters 

consistently across the United States. One of the burn severity classes within MTBS is an 

unburned to low-severity class. This burn severity class will be used to represent unburned 

islands of sagebrush within the fire perimeter for the sagebrush base layer. Areas within the other 

severity classes within the fire perimeter will be removed from the base sagebrush layer during 

the update process. Not all wildfires, however, have the same impacts on the recovery of 

sagebrush habitat, depending largely on soil moisture and temperature regimes. For example, 

cooler, moister sagebrush habitat has a higher potential for recovery or, if needed, restoration than 

does the warmer, dryer sagebrush habitat. These cooler, moister areas will likely be detected as 

sagebrush in future updates to LANDFIRE.

Conifer Encroachment Adjustment for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

Conifer encroachment into sagebrush vegetation reduces the spatial extent of Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat (Davies et al. 2011, Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013). Conifer species that show propensity 

for encroaching into sagebrush vegetation resulting in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat loss include 

various juniper species, such as Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma), western juniper (Juniperus 

occidentalis), Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum), pinyon species, including 
Worland Approved RMP 307

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy 

September 2015 Broad and Mid-Scales

singleleaf pinyon (Pinus monophylla) and pinyon pine (Pinus edulis), ponderosa pine (Pinus 

ponderosa), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) (Gruell et 

al. 1986, Grove et al. 2005, Davies et al. 2011). 

A rule set for conifer encroachment was developed to be used for determination of the existing 

sagebrush base layer. To capture the geographic extent of sagebrush that is likely to experience 

conifer encroachment, ecological systems within LANDFIRE EVT version 1.2 (NatureServe 

2011) were identified if they have the capability of supporting the conifer species (listed above) 

and have the capability of supporting sagebrush vegetation. Those ecological systems (Table D.7,

“Ecological Systems with Conifers Most Likely to Encroach into Sagebrush Vegetation” (p. 307)) 

were deemed to be the plant communities with conifers most likely to encroach into sagebrush 

vegetation. Sagebrush vegetation was defined as including sagebrush species (Attachment B) that 

provide habitat for the Greater Sage-Grouse and are included in the Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Assessment Framework. An adjacency analysis was conducted to identify all sagebrush pixels 

that were directly adjacent to these conifer ecological systems and these immediately adjacent 

sagebrush pixels were removed from the sagebrush base layer.

Table D.7. Ecological Systems with Conifers Most Likely to Encroach into Sagebrush 

Vegetation 

EVT Ecological Systems Coniferous Species and Sagebrush Vegetation that the 

Ecological System has the Capability to Produce

Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Pinus edulis

Juniperus osteosperma 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia bigelovii

Artemisia pygmaea

Columbia Plateau Western Juniper Woodland and 

Savanna

Juniperus occidentalis 

Pinus ponderosa 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia rigida

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

East Cascades Oak-Ponderosa Pine Forest and Woodland Pinus ponderosa 

Pseudotsuga menziesii 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia nova

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Pinus monophylla 

Juniperus osteosperma 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Northern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland and 

Savanna

Pinus ponderosa 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana
308 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

Broad and Mid-Scales September 2015

EVT Ecological Systems Coniferous Species and Sagebrush Vegetation that the 

Ecological System has the Capability to Produce

Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland Juniperus osteosperma 

Juniperus scopulorum 

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Rocky Mountain Poor-Site Lodgepole Pine Forest Pinus contorta 

Pseudotsuga menziesii 

Pinus ponderosa

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Pinus edulis

Juniperus monosperma 

Artemisia bigelovii

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland Pinus ponderosa 

Pseudotsuga menziesii 

Pinus edulis

Pinus contorta 

Juniperus spp. 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia tridentata ssp. Vaseyana

Invasive Annual Grasses for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

There are no invasive species datasets from 2010 to the present (beyond the LANDFIRE data) 

that meet the three criteria (nationally consistent, known level of accuracy, and periodically 

updated) for use in the determination of the sagebrush base layer. For a description of how 

invasive species land cover will be incorporated in the sagebrush base layer in the future, see 

Section D.6.3.2.1.2, “Monitoring Sagebrush Availability” (p. 308). 

Sagebrush Restoration Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

There are no datasets from 2010 to the present that could provide additions to the sagebrush base 

layer from restoration treatments that meet the three criteria (nationally consistent, known level 

of accuracy, and periodically updated); therefore, no adjustments were made to the sagebrush 

base layer calculated from the LANDFIRE EVT (version 1.2) attributable to restoration activities 

since 2010. Successful restoration treatments before 2010 are assumed to have been captured

in the LANDFIRE refresh.

D.6.3.2.1.2. Monitoring Sagebrush Availability 

Updating the Sagebrush Availability Sagebrush Base Layer 

Sagebrush availability will be updated annually by incorporating changes to the sagebrush base 

layer attributable to agriculture, urbanization, and wildfire. The monitoring schedule for the 

existing sagebrush base layer updates is as follows: 

● 2010 Existing Sagebrush Base Layer = [Sagebrush EVT] minus [2006 ImperviousnessLayer] 

minus [2009 and 2010 CDL] minus [2009/10 GeoMac Fires < 1,000 acres] minus [2009/10 

MTBS Fires excluding unburned sagebrush islands] minus [Conifer Encroachment Layer]
Worland Approved RMP 309

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy 

September 2015 Broad and Mid-Scales

● 2012 Existing Sagebrush Update = [Base 2010 Existing Sagebrush Layer] minus [2011 

Imperviousness Layer] minus [2011 and 2012 CDL] minus [2011/12 GeoMac Fires < 1,000 

acres] minus [2011/12 MTBS Fires that are greater than 1,000 acres, excluding unburned 

sagebrush islands within the perimeter]

● 2013 and beyond Existing Sagebrush Updates = [Previous Existing Sagebrush Update Layer] 

minus [Imperviousness Layer (if new data are available)] minus [Next 2 years of CDL] 

minus [Next 2 years of GeoMac Fires < 1,000 acres] minus [Next 2 years MTBS Fires that 

are greater than 1,000 acres, excluding unburned sagebrush islands within the perimeter] plus 

[restoration/monitoring data provided by the field]

Sagebrush Restoration Updates

Restoration after fire, after agricultural conversion, after seedings of introduced grasses, or after 

treatments of pinyon pine and/or juniper, are examples of updates to the sagebrush base layer that 

can add sagebrush vegetation back in. When restoration has been determined to be successful 

through range wide, consistent, interagency fine and site-scale monitoring, the polygonal data will 

be used to add sagebrush pixels back into the broad and mid-scale sagebrush base layer.

Measure 1b – Context for the change in the amount of sagebrush in a landscape of interest 

Measure 1b describes the amount of sagebrush on the landscape of interest compared with 

the amount of sagebrush the landscape of interest could ecologically support. Areas with the 

potential to support sagebrush were derived from the BpS data layer that describes sagebrush 

pre Euro-American settlement (biophysical setting (BpS) v1.2 of LANDFIRE). This measure

(1b) will provide information during evaluations of monitoring data to set the context for a given 

geographic area of interest. The information could also be used to inform management options for 

restoration, mitigation and inform effectiveness monitoring.

The identification and spatial locations of natural plant communities (vegetation) that are believed 

to have existed on the landscape (BpS) were constructed based on an approximation of the 

historical (pre Euro-American settlement) disturbance regime and how the historical disturbance 

regime operated on the current biophysical environment. BpS is composed of map units which 

are based on NatureServe’s (2011) terrestrial ecological systems classification.

The ecological systems within BpS used for this monitoring framework are those ecological 

systems that have the capability of supporting sagebrush vegetation and could provide seasonal 

habitat for the Greater Sage-Grouse. These ecological systems are listed in Table D.6, “Ecological

Systems in BpS and EVT Capable of Supporting Sagebrush Vegetation and Could Provide

Suitable Seasonal Habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse” (p. 303) with the exception of the Artemisia 

tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance and the Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance. 

Ecological systems selected included sagebrush species or subspecies that are included in the 

Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework and are found in Attachment B. 

Attributable to the lack of any reference data, the BpS layer does not have an associated accuracy 

assessment. Visual inspection, however, of the BpS data reveals inconsistencies in the labeling of 

pixels among LANDFIRE map zones. The reason for these inconsistencies between map zones 

are the decision rules used to map a given ecological system will vary between map zones based 

on different physical, biological, disturbance and atmospheric regimes of the region. This can 

result in artificial edges in the map that are an artifact of the mapping process. However, metrics 

will be calculated at broad spatial scales using BpS potential vegetation type, not small groupings 

or individual pixels, therefore, the magnitude of these observable errors in the BpS layer is minor 
310 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

Broad and Mid-Scales September 2015

compared with the size of the reporting units. Therefore, since BpS will be used to identify broad 

landscape patterns of dominant vegetation, these inconsistencies will only have a minor impact on 

the percent sagebrush availability calculation.

LANDFIRE BpS data are not designed to be used at a local level. In reporting the percent 

sagebrush statistic for the various reporting units, the uncertainty of the percent sagebrush will 

increase as the size of the reporting unit gets smaller. LANDFIRE data should never be used at 

the pixel level (30m2) for any reporting. The smallest geographic extent use of the data for this 

purpose is at the PAC level and for the smallest PACs the initial percent sagebrush remaining 

estimate will have greater uncertainties compared with the much larger PACs.

Tracking 

BLM will analyze and monitor sagebrush availability (Measure 1) on a bi-annual basis and it 

will be used to inform effectiveness monitoring and initiate adaptive management actions as 

necessary. The 2010 estimate of sagebrush availability will serve as the base year and an updated 

estimate for 2012 will be reported in 2014 after all datasets become available. The 2012 estimate 

will capture changes attributable to fire, agriculture, and urban development. Subsequent updates 

will always include new fire and agricultural data and new urban data when available. Restoration 

data that meets criteria of adding sagebrush areas back into the sagebrush base layer will begin

to be factored in as data allows. Attributable to data availability, there will be a two year lag 

(approximately) between when the estimate is generated and when the data used for the estimate 

becomes available (e.g., the 2014 sagebrush availability will be included in the 2016 estimate). 

Future Plans

Geospatial data used to generate the sagebrush base layer will be available through BLM’s EGIS 

Web Portal and Geospatial Gateway or through the authoritative data source. Legacy datasets will 

be preserved, so that trends may be calculated. Additionally, accuracy assessment data for all 

source datasets will be provided on the portal either spatially, where applicable, or through the 

metadata. Accuracy assessment information was deemed vital to share to help users understand 

the limitation of the sagebrush estimates and will be summarized spatially by map zone and 

included in the Portal. 

LANDFIRE plans to begin a remapping effort in 2015. This remapping has the potential to greatly 

improve overall quality of the data products primarily through the use of higher quality remote 

sensing datasets. Additionally, BLM and the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium 

are working to improve the accuracy of vegetation map products for broad and mid-scale 

analyses through the Grass/Shrub mapping effort in partnership with the Multi-Resolution Land 

Characteristics Consortium. The Grass/Shrub mapping effort applies the Wyoming multi-scale 

sagebrush habitat methodology (Homer et al. 2009) to spatially depict fractional percent cover 

estimates for five components range and west-wide. These five components are percent cover

of sagebrush vegetation, percent bare ground, percent herbaceous vegetation (grass and forbs 

combined), annual vegetation, and percent shrubs. One of the benefits of the design of these 

fractional cover maps is that they facilitate monitoring “with-in” class variation (e.g., examination 

of declining trend in sagebrush cover for individual pixels). This “with-in” class variation can 

serve as one indicator of sagebrush quality that cannot be derived from LANDFIRE’s EVT 

information. The Grass/Shrub effort is not a substitute for fine scale monitoring, but will leverage 

fine scale data to support the validation of the mapping products. An evaluation will be conducted 

to determine if either dataset is of great enough quality to warrant replacing the existing sagebrush
Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy 

September 2015 Broad and Mid-Scales

Worland Approved RMP 311

layers. The earliest possible date for this evaluation will not occur until 2018 or 2019 depending 

on data availability.

D.6.3.2.2. Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2)

The measure of habitat degradation will be calculated by combining the footprints of threats 

identified in Table D.4, “Relationship between the 18 Threats and the 3 Habitat Disturbance

Measures for Monitoring” (p. 299). The footprint is defined as the direct area of influence 

of “active” energy and infrastructure; it is used as a surrogate for human activity. Although 

these analyses will try to summarize results at the aforementioned meaningful geographic areas 

of interest, some may be too small to report the metrics appropriately and may be combined 

(smaller populations, PACs within a population, etc.). Data sources for each threat are found in

Table D.8, “Geospatial Data Sources for Habitat Degradation (Measure 2)” (p. 314). Specific 

assumptions (inclusion criteria for data, width/area assumptions for point and line features, etc.) 

and methodology for each threat, and the combined measure, are detailed below. All datasets 

will be updated annually to monitor broad- and mid-scale year-to-year changes and to calculate 

trends in habitat degradation to inform adaptive management. A 5-year summary report will 

be provided to the USFWS.

Habitat Degradation Datasets and Assumptions 

Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities): This dataset will compile information 

from three oil and gas databases: the proprietary IHS Enerdeq database, the BLM Automated 

Fluid Minerals Support System (AFMSS) database, and the proprietary Platts (a McGraw-Hill 

Financial Company) GIS Custom Data (hereafter, Platts) database of power plants. Point data 

from wells active within the last 10 years from IHS and producing wells from AFMSS will be 

considered as a 5-acre (2.0ha) direct area of influence centered on the well point, as recommended 

by the BLM WO-300 (Minerals and Realty Management). Plugged and abandoned wells will

be removed if the date of well abandonment was before the first day of the reporting year (i.e., 

for the 2015 reporting year, a well must have been plugged and abandoned by 12/31/2014 to be 

removed). Platts oil and gas power plants data (subset to operational power plants) will also be 

included as a 5-acre (2.0ha) direct area of influence.

Additional Measure: Reclaimed Energy-related Degradation: This dataset will include those 

wells that have been plugged and abandoned. This measure thereby attempts to measure energyrelated degradation that has been reclaimed but not necessarily fully restored to Greater SageGrouse habitat. This measure will establish a baseline by using wells that have been plugged 

and abandoned within the last 10 years from the IHS and AFMSS datasets. Time lags for lek 

attendance in response to infrastructure have been documented to be delayed 2–10 years from 

energy development activities (Harju et al. 2010). Reclamation actions may require 2 or more 

years from the Final Abandonment Notice. Sagebrush seedling establishment may take 6 or 

more years from the point of seeding, depending on such variables as annual precipitation, 

annual temperature, and soil type and depth (Pyke 2011). This 10-year period is conservative 

and assumes some level of habitat improvement 10 years after plugging. Research by Hemstrom 

et al. (2002), however, proposes an even longer period—more than 100 years—for recovery of 

sagebrush habitats, even with active restoration approaches. Direct area of influence will be

considered 3 acres (1.2ha) (J. Perry, personal communication, February 12, 2014). This additional 

layer/measure could be used at the broad and mid-scale to identify areas where sagebrush habitat 

and/or potential sagebrush habitat is likely still degraded. This layer/measure could also be 

used where further investigation at the fine or site scale would be warranted to: 1) quantify the 
Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

Broad and Mid-Scales September 2015

312 Worland Approved RMP

level of reclamation already conducted, and 2) evaluate the amount of restoration still required 

for sagebrush habitat recovery. At a particular level (e.g., population, PACs), these areas and 

the reclamation efforts/success could be used to inform reclamation standards associated with 

future developments. Once these areas have transitioned from reclamation standards to meeting

restoration standards, they can be added back into the sagebrush availability layer using the same 

methodology as described for adding restoration treatment areas lost to wildfire and agriculture 

conversion (see Monitoring Sagebrush Restoration in Section D.6.3.2.1.2, “Monitoring Sagebrush

Availability” (p. 308)). This dataset will be updated annually from the IHS dataset. 

Energy (coal mines): Currently, there is no comprehensive dataset available that identifies the 

footprint of active coal mining across all jurisdictions. Therefore, point and polygon datasets will 

be used each year to identify coal mining locations. Data sources will be identified and evaluated 

annually and will include at a minimum: BLM coal lease polygons, U.S. Energy Information 

Administration mine occurrence points, U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement coal mining permit polygons (as available), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

Mineral Resources Data System mine occurrence points. These data will inform where active coal 

mining may be occurring. Additionally, coal power plant data from Platts power plants database 

(subset to operational power plants) will be included. Aerial imagery will then be used to digitize 

manually the active coal mining and coal power plants surface disturbance in or near these known 

occurrence areas. While the date of aerial imagery varies by scale, the most current data available 

from Esri and/or Google will be used to locate (generally at 1:50,000 and below) and digitize 

(generally at 1:10,000 and below) active coal mine and power plant direct area of influence. Coal 

mine location data source and imagery date will be documented for each digitized coal polygon at 

the time of creation. Subsurface facility locations (polygon or point location as available) will 

also be collected if available, included in density calculations, and added to the active surface 

activity layer as appropriate (if an actual direct area of influence can be located).

Energy (wind energy facilities): This dataset will be a subset of the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) Digital Obstacles point file. Points where “Type_” = “WINDMILL” will 

be included. Direct area of influence of these point features will be measured by converting to 

a polygon dataset as a direct area of influence of 3 acres (1.2ha) centered on each tower point. 

See the BLM’s “Wind Energy Development Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement” 

(BLM 2005). Additionally, Platts power plants database will be used for transformerstations

associated with wind energy sites (subset to operational power plants), also with a 3-acre (1.2ha) 

direct area of influence.

Energy (solar energy facilities): This dataset will include solar plants as compiled with the Platts 

power plants database (subset to operational power plants). This database includes an attribute 

that indicates the operational capacity of each solar power plant. Total capacity at the power plant 

was based on ratings of the in-service unit(s), in megawatts. Direct area of influence polygons 

will be centered over each point feature representing 7.3ac (3.0ha) per megawatt of the stated 

operational capacity, per the report of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), 

“Land-Use Requirements for Solar Power Plants in the United States” (Ong et al. 2013). 

Energy (geothermal energy facilities): This dataset will include geothermal wells in existence 

or under construction as compiled with the IHS wells database and power plants as compiled 

with the Platts database (subset to operational power plants). Direct area of influence of these 

point features will be measured by converting to a polygon dataset of 3 acres (1.2ha) centered 

on each well or power plant point.
Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy 

September 2015 Broad and Mid-Scales

Worland Approved RMP 313

Mining (active developments; locatable, leasable, salable): This dataset will include active 

locatable mining locations as compiled with the proprietary InfoMine database. Aerial imagery 

will then be used to digitize manually the active mining surface disturbance in or near these 

known occurrence areas. While the date of aerial imagery varies by scale, the most current data 

available from Esri and/or Google will be used to locate (generally at 1:50,000 and below) and 

digitize (generally at 1:10,000 and below) active mine direct area of influence. Mine location data 

source and imagery date will be documented for each digitized polygon at the time of creation. 

Currently, there are no known compressive databases available for leasable or salable mining sites 

beyond coal mines. Other data sources will be evaluated and used as they are identified or as they 

become available. Point data may be converted to polygons to represent direct area of influence 

unless actual surface disturbance is available.

Infrastructure (roads): This dataset will be compiled from the proprietary Esri StreetMap 

Premium for ArcGIS. Dataset features that will be used are: Interstate Highways, Major Roads, 

and Surface Streets to capture most paved and “crowned and ditched” roads while not including 

“two-track” and 4-wheel-drive routes. These minor roads, while not included in the broad- and 

mid-scale monitoring, may support a volume of traffic that can have deleterious effects on Greater 

Sage-Grouse leks. It may be appropriate to consider the frequency and type of use of roads in 

a NEPA analysis for a proposed project. This fine- and site-scale analysis will require more 

site-specific data than is identified in this monitoring framework. The direct area of influence 

for roads will be represented by 240.2ft, 84.0ft, and 40.7ft (73.2m, 25.6m, and 12.4m) total 

widths centered on the line feature for Interstate Highways, Major Roads, and Surface Streets,

respectively (Knick et al. 2011). The most current dataset will be used for each monitoring update. 

Note: This is a related but different dataset than what was used in BER (Manier et al. 2013). 

Individual BLM planning units may use different road layers for fine- and site-scale monitoring.

Infrastructure (railroads): This dataset will be a compilation from the Federal Railroad 

Administration Rail Lines of the USA dataset. Non-abandoned rail lines will be used; abandoned 

rail lines will not be used. The direct are of influence for railroads will be represented by a 30.8ft 

(9.4m) total width (Knick et al. 2011) centered on the non-abandoned railroad line feature.

Infrastructure (powerlines): This line dataset will be derived from the proprietary Platts 

transmission lines database. Linear features in the dataset attributed as “buried” will be removed 

from the disturbance calculation. Only “In Service” lines will be used; “Proposed” lines will 

not be used. Direct area of influence will be determined by the kV designation: 1–199 kV 

(100ft/30.5m), 200–399 kV (150ft/45.7m), 400–699 kV (200ft/61.0m), and 700-or greater kV 

(250ft/76.2m) based on average right-of-way and structure widths, according to BLM WO-300 

(Minerals and Realty Management).

Infrastructure (communication towers): This point dataset will be compiled from the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) communication towers point file; all duplicate pointswill 

be removed. It will be converted to a polygon dataset by using a direct area of influence of 2.5 

acres (1.0ha) centered on each communication tower point (Knick et al. 2011). 

Infrastructure (other vertical structures): This point dataset will be compiled from the FAA’s 

Digital Obstacles point file. Points where “Type_” = “WINDMILL” will be removed. Duplicate 

points from the FCC communication towers point file will be removed. Remaining features will 

be converted to a polygon dataset using a direct area of influence of 2.5 acres (1.0ha) centered on 

each vertical structure point (Knick et al. 2011). 
Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

Broad and Mid-Scales September 2015

314 Worland Approved RMP

Other Developed Rights-of-Way: Currently, no additional data sources for other rights-of-way 

have been identified; roads, power lines, railroads, pipelines, and other known linear features are 

represented in the categories described above. The newly purchased IHS data do contain pipeline 

information; however, this database does not currently distinguish between above-ground and 

underground pipelines. If additional features representing human activities are identified, they 

will be added to monitoring reports using similar assumptions to those used with the threats 

described above.

D.6.3.2.2.1. Habitat Degradation Threat Combination and Calculation 

The threats targeted for measuring human activity (Table D.8, “Geospatial Data Sources for

Habitat Degradation (Measure 2)” (p. 314)) will be converted to direct area of influence polygons 

as described for each threat above. These threat polygon layers will be combined and features 

dissolved to create one overall polygon layer representing footprints of active human activity in 

the range of Greater Sage-Grouse. Individual datasets, however, will be preserved to indicate 

which types of threats may be contributing to overall habitat degradation. This measure has been 

divided into three sub measures to describe habitat degradation on the landscape. Percentages 

will be calculated as follows: 

● Measure 2a. Footprint by geographic area of interest: Divide area of the active/direct footprint 

by the total area of the geographic area of interest (% disturbance in geographic area of interest).

● Measure 2b. Active/direct footprint by historical sagebrush potential: Divide area of theactive 

footprint that coincides with areas with historical sagebrush potential (BpS calculation from 

habitat availability) within a given geographic area of interest by the total area with sagebrush 

potential within the geographic area of interest (% disturbance on potential historical sagebrush 

in geographic area of interest).

● Measure 2c. Active/direct footprint by current sagebrush: Divide area of the active footprint 

that coincides with areas of existing sagebrush (EVT calculation from habitat availability) 

within a given geographic area of interest by the total area that is current sagebrush within the 

geographic area of interest (% disturbance on current sagebrush in geographic area of interest).

Table D.8. Geospatial Data Sources for Habitat Degradation (Measure 2) 

Degradation Type Subcategory Data Source Direct Area of 

Influence Area Source

Energy (oil & gas) Wells IHS; BLM (AFMSS) 5.0 acres (2.0 

hectares)

BLM - WO-300

Power Plants Platts (power plants) 5.0 acres (2.0 

hectares)

BLM - WO-300

Energy (coal) Mines BLM; USFS; Office 

of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and 

Envofrement; USGS 

Mineral Resources 

Data System

Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri/ Google Imagery

Power Plants Platts (power plants) Polygon area

(digitized)

Esri Imagery

Energy (wind) Wind Turbines Federal Aviation 

Administration

3.0 acres (1.2 

hectares)

BLM - WO-300

Power Plants Platts (power plants) 3.0 acres (1.2 

hectares)

BLM - WO-300
Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy 

September 2015 Broad and Mid-Scales

Worland Approved RMP 315

Degradation Type Subcategory Data Source Direct Area of 

Influence Area Source

Energy (solar) Fields/Power Plants Platts (power plants) 7.3 acres (3.0 

hectares)/MW

NREL

Energy (geothermal) Wells IHS 3.0 acres (1.2 

hectares)

BLM - WO-300

Power Plants Platts (power plants) Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri Imagery

Mining Locatable 

Developments

InfoMine Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri Imagery

Infrastructure (roads) Surface Streets

(Minor Roads)

Esri StreetMap 

Premium

40.7 feet (12.4meters) USGS

Major Roads Esri StreetMap 

Premium

84.0 feet (25.6meters) USGS

Interstate Highways Esri StreetMap 

Premium

240.2 feet (73.2 

meters)

USGS

Infrastructure 

(railroads)

ActiveLines Federal Railroad 

Administration

30.8 feet (9.4 meters) USGS

Infrastructure 

(powerlines)

1-199 kV Lines Platts (transmission 

lines)

100 feet (30.5 meters) BLM - WO-300

200-399 kV Lines Platts (transmission 

lines)

150 feet (45.7 meters) BLM - WO-300

400-699 kV Lines Platts (transmission 

lines)

200 feet (61.0 meters) BLM - WO-300

700+ kV Lines Platts (transmission 

lines)

250 feet (76.2 meters) BLM - WO-300

Infrastructure 

(communication

Towers Federal 

Communications 

Commission

2.5 acres (1.0 

hectares)

BLM - WO-300

AFMSS Automated Fluid Minerals Support System 

BLM Bureau of Land Management

kV Kilovolt

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

USFS United States Forest Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

D.6.3.2.3. Energy and Mining Density (Measure 3)

The measure of density of energy and mining will be calculated by combining the locations of 

energy and mining threats identified in Table D.4, “Relationship between the 18 Threats and the 3

Habitat Disturbance Measures for Monitoring” (p. 299). This measure will provide an estimate 

of the intensity of human activity or the intensity of habitat degradation. The number of energy 

facilities and mining locations will be summed and divided by the area of meaningful geographic 

areas of interest to calculate density of these activities. Data sources for each threat are found in 

Table D.8, “Geospatial Data Sources for Habitat Degradation (Measure 2)” (p. 314). Specific 

assumptions (inclusion criteria for data, width/area assumptions for point and line features, etc.) 

and methodology for each threat, and the combined measure, are detailed below. All datasets 

will be updated annually to monitor broad- and mid-scale year-to-year changes and 5-year (or 

longer) trends in habitat degradation. 

Energy and Mining Density Datasets and Assumptions
Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

Broad and Mid-Scales September 2015

316 Worland Approved RMP

● Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities) (See Section D.6.3.2.2, “Habitat

Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2)” (p. 311)) 

● Energy (coal mines) (See Section D.6.3.2.2, “Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure

2)” (p. 311)) 

● Energy (wind energy facilities) (See Section D.6.3.2.2, “Habitat Degradation Monitoring

(Measure 2)” (p. 311)) 

● Energy (solar energy facilities) (See Section D.6.3.2.2, “Habitat Degradation Monitoring

(Measure 2)” (p. 311)) 

● Energy (geothermal energy facilities) (See Section D.6.3.2.2, “Habitat Degradation Monitoring

(Measure 2)” (p. 311)) 

● Mining (active developments; locatable, leasable, salable) (See Section D.6.3.2.2, “Habitat

Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2)” (p. 311)) 

Energy and Mining Density Threat Combination and Calculation 

Datasets for energy and mining will be collected in two primary forms: point locations (e.g., wells) 

and polygon areas (e.g., surface coal mining). The following rule set will be used to calculate 

density for meaningful geographic areas of interest including standard grids and per polygon: 

1. Point locations will be preserved; no additional points will be removed beyond the 

methodology described above. Energy facilities in close proximity (an oil well close to a 

wind tower) will be retained.

2. Polygons will not be merged, or features further dissolved. Thus, overlapping facilities will 

be retained, such that each individual threat will be a separate polygon data input for the 

density calculation.

3. The analysis unit (polygon or 640-acre section in a grid) will be the basis for counting 

the number of mining or energy facilities per unit area. Within the analysis unit, all point 

features will be summed, and any individual polygons will be counted as one (e.g., a coal 

mine will be counted as one facility within population). Where polygon features overlap

multiple units (polygons or pixels), the facility will be counted as one in each unit where the 

polygon occurs (e.g., a polygon crossing multiple 640-acre sections would be counted as one 

in each 640-acre section for a density per 640-acre-section calculation).

4. In methodologies with different-sized units (e.g., MZs, populations, etc.) raw facility counts 

will be converted to densities by dividing the raw facility counts by the total area of the unit. 

Typically this will be measured as facilities per 640 acres.

5. For uniform grids, raw facility counts will be reported. Typically this number will also be 

converted to facilities per 640 acres.

6. Reporting may include summaries beyond the simple ones above. Zonal statistics may be 

used to smooth smaller grids to help display and convey information about areas within 

meaningful geographic areas of interest that have high levels of energy and/or mining activity.

7. Additional statistics for each defined unit may also include adjusting the area to include only 

the area with the historical potential for sagebrush (BpS) or areas currently sagebrush (EVT).

Individual datasets and threat combination datasets for habitat degradation will be available 

through the BLM’s EGIS web portal and geospatial gateway. Legacy datasets will be preserved 

so that trends may be calculated.

D.6.3.3. Population (Demographics) Monitoring

State wildlife management agencies are responsible for monitoring Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations within their respective states. WAFWA will coordinate this collection of annual 
Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy 

September 2015 Broad and Mid-Scales

Worland Approved RMP 317

population data by state agencies. These data will be made available to the BLM according to 

the terms of the forthcoming Greater Sage-Grouse Population Monitoring Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) (2014) between WAFWA and the BLM. The MOU outlines a process, 

timeline, and responsibilities for regular data sharing of Greater Sage-Grouse population and/or 

habitat information for the purposes of implementing Greater Sage-Grouse LUPs/amendments 

and subsequent effectiveness monitoring. Population areas were refined from the “Greater 

Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report” (COT 2013) 

by individual state wildlife agencies to create a consistent naming nomenclature for future data 

analyses. These population data will be used for analysis at the applicable scale to supplement 

habitat effectiveness monitoring of management actions and to inform the adaptive management 

responses. 

D.6.3.4. Effectiveness Monitoring

Effectiveness monitoring will provide the data needed to evaluate BLM actions toward reaching 

the objective of the national planning strategy (BLM IM 2012-044) – to conserve Greater

Sage-Grouse populations and their habitat– and the objectives for the land use planning area. 

Effectiveness monitoring methods described here will encompass multiple larger scales, from 

areas as large as the WAFWA MZ to the scale of the Bighorn Basin Planning Area. Effectiveness 

data used for these larger-scale evaluations will include all lands in the area of interest, regardless 

of surface ownership/management, and will help inform where finer-scale evaluations are needed, 

such as population areas smaller than an LUP or PACs within an LUP (described in Section D.6.4,

“Fine and Site Scales” (p. 321)). Data will also include the trend of disturbance within these areas 

of interest to inform the need to initiate adaptive management responses as described in the 

Worland Approved RMP.

The BLM will coordinate with the State of Wyoming in evaluating the compliance of all 

actions within Greater Sage-Grouse PHMAs. Evaluation of current disturbance, disruptions and 

conservation actions within a Greater Sage-Grouse PHMA will be conducted to determine if all

entities are in compliance with their specific standards and whether or not it indeed has not caused 

declines of Greater Sage-Grouse populations. This approach also helps focus scarce resources 

to areas experiencing habitat loss, degradation, or population declines, without excluding the 

possibility of concurrent, finer-scale evaluations as needed where habitat or population anomalies 

have been identified through some other means. 

To determine the effectiveness of the Greater Sage-Grouse national planning strategy, the 

BLM will evaluate the answers to the following questions and prepare a broad- and mid-scale 

effectiveness report:

1. Sagebrush Availability and Condition: 

a. What is the amount of sagebrush availability and the change in the amount and 

condition of sagebrush?

b. What is the existing amount of sagebrush on the landscape and the change in the amount 

relative to the pre-EuroAmerican historical distribution of sagebrush (BpS)?

c. What is the trend and condition of the indicators describing sagebrush characteristics 

important to Greater Sage-Grouse? 

2. Habitat Degradation and Intensity of Activities:

a. What is the amount of habitat degradation and the change in that amount? 

b. What is the intensity of activities and the change in the intensity?
Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

Broad and Mid-Scales September 2015

318 Worland Approved RMP

c. What is the amount of reclaimed energy-related degradation and the change in the 

amount? 

d. What is the population estimation of Greater Sage-Grouse and the change in the 

population estimation?

3. How is the BLM contributing to changes in the amount of sagebrush? 

4. How is the BLM contributing to disturbance? 

The compilation of broad- and mid-scale data (and population trends as available) into an 

effectiveness monitoring report will occur on a 5-year reporting schedule (see Attachment 

A), which may be accelerated to respond to critical emerging issues (in consultation with the

USFWS and state wildlife agencies). In addition, effectiveness monitoring results will be used to 

identify emerging issues and research needs and inform the BLM adaptive management strategy 

(Section D.6.3.4, “Effectiveness Monitoring” (p. 317)).

To determine the effectiveness of the Greater Sage-Grouse objectives of the land use plan, the 

BLM will evaluate the answers to the following questions and prepare a plan effectiveness report: 

1. Is this plan meeting the Greater Sage-Grouse habitat objectives?

2. Are Greater Sage-Grouse areas within the LUP meeting, or making progress toward meeting, 

land health standards, including the Special Status Species/wildlife habitat standard? 

3. Is the plan meeting the disturbance objective(s) within Greater Sage-Grouse areas?

4. Are the Greater Sage-Grouse populations within this plan boundary and within the Greater 

Sage-Grouse areas increasing, stable, or declining? 

The effectiveness monitoring report for this LUP will occur on a 5-year reporting schedule (see 

Attachment A) or more often if habitat or population anomalies indicate the need for an evaluation 

to facilitate adaptive management or respond to critical emerging issues. Data will be made 

available through the BLM’s EGIS web portal and the geospatial gateway.

Methods 

At the broad and mid-scales (PACs and above) the BLM will summarize the vegetation, 

disturbance, and (when available) population data. Although the analysis will try to summarize 

results for PACs within each Greater Sage-Grouse population, some populations may be too 

small to report the metrics appropriately and may need to be combined to provide an estimate 

with an acceptable level of accuracy. Otherwise, they will be flagged for more intensive 

monitoring by the appropriate landowner or agency. The BLM will then analyze monitoring data 

to detect the trend in the amount of sagebrush; the condition of the vegetation in the Greater 

Sage-Grouse areas (MacKinnon et al. 2011); the trend in the amount of disturbance; the change in 

disturbed areas owing to successful restoration; and the amount of new disturbance the BLM has 

permitted. These data could be supplemented with population data (when available) to inform

an understanding of the correlation between habitat and PACs within a population. This overall 

effectiveness evaluation must consider the lag effect response of populations to habitat changes 

(Garton et al. 2011). 

Calculating Question 1, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The amount of sagebrush 

available in the large area of interest will use the information from Measure 1a (I.B.1., Sagebrush 

Availability) and calculate the change from the 2012 baseline to the end date of the reporting 

period. To calculate the change in the amount of sagebrush on the landscape to compare with the 

historical areas with potential to support sagebrush, the information from Measure 1b (I.B.1., 

Sagebrush Availability) will be used. To calculate the trend in the condition of sagebrush at the 
Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy 

September 2015 Broad and Mid-Scales

Worland Approved RMP 319

mid-scale, three sources of data will be used: the BLM’s Grass/Shrub mapping effort (Future 

Plans in Section D.6.3.2.1, “Sagebrush Availability (Measure 1)” (p. 300)); the results from the 

calculation of the landscape indicators, such as patch size (described below); and the BLM’s 

Landscape Monitoring Framework (LMF) and Greater Sage-Grouse intensification effort (also 

described below). The LMF and Greater Sage-Grouse intensification effort data are collected in a 

statistical sampling framework that allows calculation of indicator values at multiple scales.

Beyond the importance of sagebrush availability to Greater Sage-Grouse, the mix of sagebrush 

patches on the landscape at the broad and mid-scale provides the life requisite of space for Greater 

Sage-Grouse dispersal needs (see the HAF). The configuration of sagebrush habitat patches and 

the land cover or land use between the habitat patches at the broad and mid-scales also defines 

suitability. There are three significant habitat indicators that influence habitat use, dispersal,

and movement across populations: the size and number of habitat patches, the connectivity of 

habitat patches (linkage areas), and habitat fragmentation (scope of unsuitable and non-habitats 

between habitat patches). The most appropriate commercial software to measure patch dynamics, 

connectivity, and fragmentation at the broad and mid‐scales will be used, along with the same 

data layers derived for sagebrush availability.

The BLM initiated the LMF in 2011 in cooperation with the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS). The objective of the LMF effort is to provide unbiased estimates of vegetation 

and soil condition and trend using a statistically balanced sample design across BLM lands. 

Recognizing that Greater Sage-Grouse populations are more resilient where the sagebrush plant 

community has certain characteristics unique to a particular life stage of Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Knick and Connelly 2011, Stiver et al. 2015), a group of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and 

sagebrush plant community subject matter experts identified those vegetation indicators collected 

at LMF sampling points that inform Greater Sage-Grouse habitat needs. The experts represented 

the Agricultural Research Service, BLM, NRCS, USFWS, WAFWA, state wildlife agencies,

and academia. The common indicators identified include: species composition, foliar cover, 

height of the tallest sagebrush and herbaceous plant, intercanopy gap, percent of invasive 

species, sagebrush shape, and bare ground. To increase the precision of estimates of sagebrush 

conditions within the range of Greater Sage-Grouse, additional plot locations in occupied Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat (Sage-Grouse Intensification) were added in 2013. The common indicators 

are also collected on sampling locations in the NRCS National Resources Inventory Rangeland 

ResourceAssessment (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/nra/nri/

?&cid=stelprdb1041620).

The Greater Sage-Grouse intensification baseline data will be collected over a 5-year period, and 

an annual Greater Sage-Grouse intensification report will be prepared describing the status of the 

indicators. Beginning in year 6, the annual status report will be accompanied with a trend report, 

which will be available on an annual basis thereafter, contingent on continuation of the current 

monitoring budget. This information, in combination with the Grass/Shrub mapping information, 

the mid-scale habitat suitability indicator measures, and the sagebrush availability information 

will be used to answer Question 1 of the National Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report. 

Calculating Question 2, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: Evaluations of the amount of 

habitat degradation and the intensity of the activities in the area of interest will use the information 

from Measure 2 (Section D.6.3.2.2, “Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2)” (p. 311)) 

and Measure 3 (Section D.6.3.2.3, “Energy and Mining Density (Measure 3)” (p. 315)). The 

field office will collect data on the amount of reclaimed energy-related degradation on plugged 

and abandoned and oil/gas well sites. The data are expected to demonstrate that the reclaimed
Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

Broad and Mid-Scales September 2015

320 Worland Approved RMP

sites have yet to meet the habitat restoration objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. This 

information, in combination with the amount of habitat degradation, will be used to answer 

Question 2 of the National Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report. 

Calculating Question 3, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The change in Greater 

Sage-Grouse estimated populations will be calculated from data provided by the state wildlife 

agencies, when available. This population data (Section D.6.3.3, “Population (Demographics)

Monitoring” (p. 316)) will be used to answer Question 3 of the National Planning Strategy 

Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 4, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The estimated contribution by 

the BLM to the change in the amount of sagebrush in the area of interest will use the information 

from Measure 1a (Section D.6.3.2.1, “Sagebrush Availability (Measure 1)” (p. 300)). This 

measure is derived from the national datasets that remove sagebrush (Table D.5, “Datasets for

Establishing and Monitoring Changes in Sagebrush Availability” (p. 302)). To determine the 

relative contribution of BLM, the current Surface Management Agency geospatial data layer will 

be used to differentiate the amount of change for each management agency for this measure in 

the geographic areas of interest. This information will be used to answer Question 4 of the 

National Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 5, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The estimated contribution by 

the BLM to the change in the amount of disturbance in the area of interest will use the information 

from Measure 2a (Section D.6.3.2.2, “Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2)” (p. 311)) 

and Measure 3 (Section D.6.3.2.3, “Energy and Mining Density (Measure 3)” (p. 315)). These 

measures are all derived from the national disturbance datasets that degrade habitat (Table D.8,

“Geospatial Data Sources for Habitat Degradation (Measure 2)” (p. 314)). To determine the 

relative contribution of BLM management, the current Surface Management Agency geospatial 

data layer will be used to differentiate the amount of change for each management agency for 

these two measures in the geographic areas of interest. This information will be used to answer 

Question 5 of the National Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report. 

Answers to the five questions for determining the effectiveness of the national planning strategy 

will identify areas that appear to be meeting the objectives of the strategy and will facilitate 

identification of population areas for more detailed analysis. Conceptually, if the broad-scale 

monitoring identifies increasing sagebrush availability and improving vegetation conditions, 

decreasing disturbance, and a stable or increasing population for the area of interest, there is 

evidence that the objectives of the national planning strategy to maintain populations and their 

habitats have been met. Conversely, where information indicates that sagebrush is decreasing 

and vegetation conditions are degrading, disturbance in Greater Sage-Grouse areas is increasing, 

and/or populations are declining relative to the baseline, there is evidence that the objectives of 

the national planning strategy are not being achieved. Such a determination would likely result 

in a more detailed analysis and could be the basis for implementing more restrictive adaptive 

management measures.

With respect to the land use plan area, the BLM will summarize the vegetation, disturbance, and 

population data to determine if the LUP is meeting the plan objectives. Effectiveness information 

used for these evaluations includes BLM surface management areas and will help inform where 

finer-scale evaluations are needed, such as seasonal habitats, corridors, or linkage areas. Data will 

also include the trend of disturbance within the Greater Sage-Grouse areas, which will inform the 

need to initiate adaptive management responses as described in the Worland Approved RMP. 
Worland Approved RMP 321

Calculating Question 1, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The condition of vegetation and 

the allotments meeting land health standards (as articulated in “BLM Handbook 4180-1, 

Rangeland Health Standards”) in Greater Sage-Grouse areas will be used to determine the LUP’s 

effectiveness in meeting the vegetation objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat set forth in the 

plan. The field office/ranger district will be responsible for collecting this data. In order for this 

data to be consistent and comparable, common indicators, consistent methods, and an unbiased 

sampling framework will be implemented following the principles in the BLM’s AIM strategy 

(Taylor et al. 2014; Toevs et al. 2011; MacKinnon et al. 2011), in the BLM’s Technical Reference 

“Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health” (Pellant et al. 2005), and in the HAF (Stiver et 

al. 2015) or other approved WAFWA MZ–consistent guidance to measure and monitor Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitats. This information will be used to answer Question 1 of the Land Use 

Plan Effectiveness Report. 

Calculating Question 2, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: Sage-grouse areas within the LUP 

that are achieving land health stands (or, if trend data are available, that are making progress 

toward achieving them)—particularly the Special Status Species/wildlife habitat land health

standard—will be used to determine the LUP’s effectiveness in achieving the habitat objectives 

set forth in the plan. Field offices will follow directions in “BLM Handbook 4180-1, Rangeland 

Health Standards,” to ascertain if Greater Sage-Grouse areas are achieving or making progress 

toward achieving land health standards. One of the recommended criteria for evaluating this 

land health standard is the HAF indicators. 

Calculating Question 3, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The amount of habitat disturbance in 

Greater Sage-Grouse areasidentified in this LUP will be used to determine the LUP’s effectiveness 

in meeting the plan’s disturbance objectives. National datasets can be used to calculate the 

amount of disturbance, but field office data will likely increase the accuracy of this estimate. This 

information will be used to answer Question 3 of the Land Use Plan Effectiveness Report. 

Calculating Question 4, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The change in estimated Greater

Sage-Grouse populations will be calculated from data provided by the state wildlife agencies, 

when available, and will be used to determine LUP effectiveness. This population data 

(Section D.6.3.3, “Population (Demographics) Monitoring” (p. 316)) will be used to answer 

Question 4 of the Land Use Plan Effectiveness Report. 

Results of the effectiveness monitoring process for the LUP will be used to inform the need for 

finer-scale investigations, initiate adaptive management actions as described in the Worland 

Approved RMP, initiate causation determination, and/or determine if changes to management 

decisions are warranted. The measures used at the broad and mid‐scales will provide a suite of 

characteristics for evaluating the effectiveness of the adaptive management strategy.

D.6.4. Fine and Site Scales

Fine-scale (third-order) habitat selected by Greater Sage-Grouse is described as the physical 

and geographic area within home ranges during breeding, summer, and winter periods. At this 

level, habitat suitability monitoring should address factors that affect Greater Sage-Grouse use 

of, and movements between, seasonal use areas. The habitat monitoring at the fine and site 

scale (fourth order) should focus on indicators to describe seasonal home ranges for Greater 

Sage-Grouse associated with a lek or lek group within a population or subpopulation area.

Fine- and site-scale monitoring will inform LUP effectiveness monitoring (see Section D.6.3.4,

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy

September 2015 Fine and Site Scales
322 Worland Approved RMP

“Effectiveness Monitoring” (p. 317)) and the hard and soft triggers identified in the LUP’s 

adaptive management section. 

The BLM will coordinate with the State of Wyoming to share conservation, disturbance and 

vegetation analysis data to provide a core by core evaluation to make necessary adjustments in 

activity, priorities and other actions. 

Site-scale habitat selected by Greater Sage-Grouse is described as the more detailed vegetation 

characteristics of seasonal habitats. Habitat suitability characteristics include canopy cover and 

height of sagebrush and the associated understory vegetation. They also include vegetation 

associated with riparian areas, wet meadows, and other mesic habitats adjacent to sagebrush that 

may support Greater Sage-Grouse habitat needs during different stages in their annual cycle. 

As described in the Conclusion (Section D.6.5, “Conclusion” (p. 323)), details and application of 

monitoring at the fine and site scales will be described in the implementation-level monitoring 

plan for the Worland Approved RMP. The need for fine- and site-scale-specific habitat monitoring 

will vary by area, depending on proposed projects, existing conditions, habitat variability, 

threats, and land health. Examples of fine- and site-scale monitoring include: habitat vegetation 

monitoring to assess current habitat conditions; monitoring and evaluation of the success of 

projects targeting Greater Sage-Grouse habitat enhancement and/or restoration; and habitat 

disturbance monitoring to provide localized disturbance measures to inform proposed project 

review and potential mitigation for project impacts. Monitoring plans should incorporate the 

principles outlined in the BLM’s AIM strategy (Toevs et al. 2011) and in “AIM-Monitoring: 

A Component of the Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy” (Taylor et al. 2014). 

Approved monitoring methods are: 

● “BLM Core Terrestrial Indicators and Methods” (MacKinnon et al. 2011); 

● The BLM’s Technical Reference “Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health” (Pellant et 

al. 2005); and, 

● “Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Assessment Tool” (Stiver et al. 

in press).

Other state-specific disturbance tracking models include: the BLM’s Wyoming Density and 

Disturbance Calculation Tool (http://ddct.wygisc.org/) and the BLM’s White River Data 

Management System in development with the USGS. Population monitoring data (in cooperation 

with state wildlife agencies) should be included during evaluation of the effectiveness of actions 

taken at the fine and site scales.

Fine- and site-scale Greater Sage-Grouse habitat suitability indicators for seasonal habitats are 

identified in the HAF. The HAF has incorporated the Connelly et al. (2000) Greater Sage-Grouse 

guidelines as well as many of the core indicators in the AIM strategy (Toevs et al. 2011). There 

may be a need to develop adjustments to height and cover or other site suitability values described 

in the HAF; any such adjustments should be ecologically defensible. To foster consistency, 

however, adjustments to site suitability values at the local scale should be avoided unless there is 

strong, scientific justification for making those adjustments. That justification should be provided. 

WAFWA MZ adjustments must be supported by regional plant productivity and habitat data for 

the floristic province. If adjustments are made to the site-scale indicators, they must be made 

using data from the appropriate seasonal habitat designation (breeding/nesting, brood-rearing, 

winter) collected from Greater Sage-Grouse studies found in the relevant area and peer-reviewed 

by the appropriate wildlife management agency(ies) and researchers.

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

Fine and Site Scales September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 323

When conducting land heath assessments, the BLM should follow, at a minimum, “Interpreting 

Indicators of Rangeland Health” (Pellant et. al. 2005) and the “BLM Core Terrestrial 

Indicators and Methods” (MacKinnon et al. 2011). For assessments being conducted in Greater 

Sage-Grouse designated management areas, the BLM should collect additional data to inform 

the HAF indicators that have not been collected using the above methods. Implementation of 

the principles outlined in the AIM strategy will allow the data to be used to generate unbiased 

estimates of condition across the area of interest; facilitate consistent data collection and rollup 

analysis among management units; help provide consistent data to inform the classification and 

interpretation of imagery; and provide condition and trend of the indicators describing sagebrush 

characteristics important to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (see Section D.6.3.4, “Effectiveness

Monitoring” (p. 317)).

D.6.5. Conclusion

This Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework was developed for all of the RMPs involved 

in the Greater Sage-Grouse planning effort. As such, it describes the monitoring activities at 

the broad and mid‐scales and provides a guide for the BLM to collaborate with partners/other 

agencies to develop the specific monitoring plan for the Worland Approved RMP. 

D.6.6. The BLM Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance and 

Monitoring Sub-Team Membership

Gordon Toevs (BLM-WO) 

Duane Dippon (BLM-WO) 

Frank Quamen (BLM-NOC) 

David Wood (BLM-NOC) 

Vicki Herren (BLM-NOC) 

Matt Bobo (BLM-NOC)

Michael “Sherm” Karl (BLM-NOC) 

Emily Kachergis (BLM-NOC) 

Doug Havlina (BLM-NIFC)

Mike Pellant (BLM-GBRI) 

John Carlson (BLM-MT) 

Jenny Morton (BLM-WY) 

Robin Sell (BLM-CO) 

Paul Makela (BLM-ID) 

Renee Chi (BLM-UT) 

Sandra Brewer (BLM-NV)

Glenn Frederick (BLM-OR) 

Robert Skorkowsky (USFS) 

Dalinda Damm (USFS) 

Rob Mickelsen (USFS)

Tim Love (USFS) 

Pam Bode (USFS)

Lief Wiechman (USFWS) 

Lara Juliusson (USFWS) 

September 2015

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy

Conclusion
324 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

The BLM Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance and 

Monitoring Sub-Team Membership September 2015

Bibliography

Baruch-Mordo, S., J.S. Evans, J.P. Severson, D.E. Naugle, J.D. Maestas, J.M. Kiesecker, M.J. 

Falkowski, C.A. Hagen, and K.P. Reese. 2013. Saving sage-grouse from the trees: A 

proactive solution to reducing a key threat to a candidate species. Biological Conservation 

167:233–241. 

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage 

grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967–985. 

Connelly, J.W., K.P. Reese, and M.A. Schroeder. 2003. Monitoring of Greater Sage-grouse 

habitats and populations. Station Bulletin 80. College of Natural Resources Experiment 

Station, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 

Connelly, J.W., S.T Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of 

Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitats. Unpublished report. Western Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, WY. Available online: http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/

docs/Greater_Sage-grouse_Conservation_Assessment_060404.pdf. 

Davies, K.W., C.S. Boyd, J.L. Beck, J.D. Bates, T.J. Svejcar, and M.A. Gregg. 2011. Saving the 

sagebrush sea: An ecosystem conservation plan for big sagebrush plant communities.

Biological Conservation 144:2573–2584. 

Fry, J.A., G. Xian, S. Jin, J.A. Dewitz, C.G. Homer, L. Yang, C.A. Barnes, N.D. Herold, and 

J.D. Wickham. 2011. Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the 

conterminous United States. PE&RS 77(9):858–864. 

Garton, E.O., J.W. Connelly, J.S. Horne, C.A. Hagen, A. Moser, and M. Schroeder. 2011. 

Greater Sage-Grouse population dynamics and probability of persistence. In: Greater 

Sage-Grouse: Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats, edited by

S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 293–382. Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of 

California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Grove, A.J., C.L. Wambolt, and M.R. Frisina. 2005. Douglas-fir’s effect on mountain big 

sagebrush wildlife habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:74–80. 

Gruell, G.E., J.K. Brown, and C.L. Bushey. 1986. Prescribed fire opportunities in grasslands 

invaded by Douglas-fir: State-of-the-art guidelines. General Technical Report INT-198. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, 

UT. 19pp. 

Harju, S.M., M.R. Dzialak, R.C. Taylor, L.D. Hayden-Wing, J.B. Winstead. 2010. Thresholds and 

time lags in effects of energy development on greater sage-grouse populations. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 74(3):437–448. 

Hemstrom, M.A., M.J. Wisdom, M.M. Rowland, B. Wales, W.J. Hann, and R.A. Gravenmier. 

2002. Sagebrush-steppe vegetation dynamics and potential for restoration in the Interior 

Columbia Basin, USA. Conservation Biology 16:1243–1255. 

Homer, C.G., C.L. Aldridge, D.K. Meyer, M.J. Coan, and Z.H. Bowen. 2009. Multiscale 

sagebrush rangeland habitat modeling in southwest Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2008–1027. 14pp. 
Worland Approved RMP 325

Johnson, D.H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating 

resource preference. Ecology 61:65–71. 

Knick, S.T., and J.W. Connelly (editors). 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and conservation 

of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of 

California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Knick, S.T., and S.E. Hanser. 2011. Connecting pattern and process in Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations and sagebrush landscapes. In: Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and 

conservation of a landscape species and its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W. 

Connelly, 383–405. Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of California Press, 

Berkeley, CA.

Knick, S.T., S.E. Hanser, R.F. Miller, D.A. Pyke, M.J. Wisdom, S.P. Finn, E.T. Rinkes, and C.J. 

Henny. 2011. Ecological influence and pathways of land use in sagebrush. In: Greater 

Sage-Grouse: Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats, edited by 

S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 203–251. Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of 

California Press, Berkeley, CA.

LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type layer. (2013, June – last update.) U.S. 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. [Online.] Available online: 

http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/[2013, May 8]. 

Leu, M., and S.E. Hanser. 2011. Influences of the human footprint on sagebrush landscape 

patterns: implications for sage-grouse conservation. In: Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology 

and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W. 

Connelly, 253–271. Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of California Press, 

Berkeley, CA.

MacKinnon, W.C., J.W. Karl, G.R. Toevs, J.J. Taylor, M. Karl, C.S. Spurrier, and J.E. Herrick. 

2011. BLM core terrestrial indicators and methods. Tech Note 440. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO. 

Manier, D.J., D.J.A Wood, Z.H. Bowen, R.M. 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 (Centrocercus urophasianus): U.S. Geological Survey Open–File 

Report 2013–1098. 170pp. 

NatureServe. 2011. International ecological classification standard: Terrestrial ecological 

classifications. NatureServe Central Databases, Arlington, VA. Data current as of July 

31, 2011. 

Ong, S., C. Campbell, P. Denholm, R. Margolis, and G. Heath. 2013. Land-use requirements for 

solar power plants in the United States. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. 

Department of Energy Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-56290. 39pp. Available online: 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf.

Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D.A. Pyke, and J.E. Herrick. 2005. Interpreting indicators of rangeland 

health, version 4. Technical Reference 1734-6. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center, Denver, CO. 

BLM/WO/ST-00/001+1734/REV05. 122pp. 

September 2015

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy

The BLM Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance and

Monitoring Sub-Team Membership
326 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

The BLM Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance and 

Monitoring Sub-Team Membership September 2015

Perry, J. Personal communication. February 12, 2014. 

Pyke, D.A. 2011. Restoring and rehabilitating sagebrush habitats. In: Greater Sage-Grouse: 

Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick 

and J.W. Connelly, 531–548. Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of California 

Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Schroeder, M.A., C.L. Aldridge, A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, C.E. Braun, S.D. Bunnell, J.W. Connelly, 

P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, G.D. Kobriger, S.M. McAdam, C.W. McCarthy, 

J.J. McCarthy, D.L. Mitchell, E.V. Rickerson, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Distribution of 

sage-grouse in North America. Condor 106: 363–376. 

Stiver, S.J., A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, S.D. Bunnell, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, C.W. 

McCarthy, and M.A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater Sage‐Grouse comprehensive conservation 

strategy. Unpublished report. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 

Cheyenne, WY. Available online: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01317/.

Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes, D.E. Naugle, P.D. Makela, D.A. Nance, and J.W. Karl. 2015. 

Sage-grouse habitat assessment framework: Multiscale habitat assessment tool. Bureau of 

Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Technical 

Reference. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO. 

Taylor, J., E. Kachergis, G. Toevs, J. Karl, M. Bobo, M. Karl, S. Miller, and C. Spurrier. 2014. 

AIM-monitoring: A component of the BLM assessment, inventory, and monitoring 

strategy. Tech Note 445. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

National Operations Center, Denver, CO. 

Toevs, G.R., J.J. Taylor, C.S. Spurrier, W.C. MacKinnon, M.R. Bobo. 2011. Bureau of Land 

Management assessment, inventory, and monitoring strategy: For integrated renewable 

resources management. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

National Operations Center, Denver, CO. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer. 

2012. Published crop-specific data layer [online]. USDA-NASS, Washington, D.C. 

Available online: http://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Handbook 

H-4180-1, Release 4-107. Rangeland health standards handbook. Available online: 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/

blm_handbook.Par.61484.File.dat/h4180-1.pdf. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2005. Wind Energy Development 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). BLM Washington Office, 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2011. BLM national greater 

sage-grouse land use planning strategy. Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-044. BLM 

Washington Office, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants; 12-month findings for petitions to list the greater sage-grouse 
Worland Approved RMP 327

(Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened or endangered. Proposed Rule. Federal 

Register 75: 13910–14014 (March 23, 2010). 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Greater Sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) conservation objectives: Final report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Denver, CO.

D.6.7. ATTACHMENT A: An Overview of Monitoring 

Commitments

Broad and Mid-scales Fine & Site 

Scales Implementation

Sagebrush 

Availability

Habitat 

Degradation Population Effectiveness

How will the Tracking and Tracking Tracking Tracking trends Characterizing Measuring

data be used? documenting changes in changes in in Greater the relation- seasonal

implementa- land cover disturbance Sage-Grouse ship among habitat,

tion of land (sagebrush) (threats) to populations disturbance, connectivity at

use plan deci- and inform Greater Sage- (and/or leks; as implementa- the fine scale,

sions and in- adaptive Grouse habitat determined by tion actions, and habitat

form adaptive management and inform state wildlife and sagebrush conditions at

management adaptive agencies) metrics and in- the site scale,

management and inform form adaptive calculating

adaptive management disturbance

management and inform

adaptive

management

Who is BLM Field NOC and NIFC National data State wildlife Comes from BLM field

collecting the Office and sets (NOC), agencies other broad office and State

data? USFS Forest BLM field through and mid-scale Office, USFS

offices, and WAFWA monitoring forests and

USFS forests types, analyzed regional office

as applicable by the NOC (with partners)

including

disturbance

How often Collected Updated Collected State data Collected Collection and

are the data and reported and changes and changes reported and reported trend analysis

collected, annually; reported reported annually per every 5 years ongoing,

reported and summary every annually; annually; WAFWA (coincident reported every

made available 5 years summary summary MOU; with LUP 5 years or

to USFWS? reports every reports every summary evaluations) as needed

5 years 5 years reports every to inform

5 years adaptive

management

What is the Summarized Summarized Summarized Summarized Summarized by Variable (e.g.,

spatial scale? by LUP with by PACs (size by PACs (size by PACs (size management projects and

flexibility for dependent) dependent) dependent) zone, and LUP seasonal

reporting by with flexibility with flexibility with flexibility with flexibility habitats)

other units for reporting by for reporting by for reporting by for reporting

other units other units other units by other units

(e.g., PAC)

September 2015

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy

ATTACHMENT A: An Overview of Monitoring

Commitments
328 Worland Approved RMP

Broad and Mid-scales Fine & Site 

Scales Implementation

Sagebrush 

Availability

Habitat 

Degradation Population Effectiveness

What are 

the potential 

personnel 

and budget 

impacts?

Additional capacity or re-prioritization of 

ongoing monitoring work and 

budget realignment

At a minimum, 

current skills 

and capacity 

must be 

maintained; 

data 

management 

cost to be 

decided

At a minimum, 

current skills 

and capacity 

must be 

maintained; 

data 

management 

and data layer 

purchase cost 

to be decided

No additional 

personnel or 

budget impacts 

for BLM

Additional capacity orre-prioritization of 

ongoing monitoring workand 

budget realignment

Additional capacity or re-prioritization of 

ongoing monitoring work 

and budget realignment

Who has 

primary and 

secondary 

responsibilities 

for reporting?

1) BLM field 

office and State 

Office

2) BLM 

Planning

1) NOC

2) Washington 

Office

1) NOC

2) BLM State 

Office and 

appropriate 

programs

1) WAFWA 

and state 

wildlife 

agencies

2) BLM State 

Office, NOC

1) Broad and 

mid-scale at 

the NOC, LUP 

at BLM State 

Office

1) BLM field 

office

2) BLM State 

Office

What new 

processes/ tools 

are needed?

National implementation data 

sets and analysis tools

Updates to 

national land 

cover data

Data standards 

and roll-up 

methods for 

these data

Standards in 

population 

monitoring 

(WAFWA)

Reporting 

methodologies

Data standards 

data storage; 

and reporting

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

LUP Land Use Plan

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NOC National Operations Center 

NIFC National Interagency Fire Center 

PAC Priority Area for Conservation 

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

WAFWA Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

D.6.8. ATTACHMENT B: List of All Sagebrush Species and 

Subspecies Included in the Selection Criteria for Building the 

EVT and BpS Layers

● Artemisia arbuscula subspecies longicaulis 

● Artemisia arbuscula subspecies longiloba 

● Artemisia bigelovii 

● Artemisia nova 

● Artemisia papposa 

● Artemisia pygmaea 

● Artemisia rigida 

● Artemisia spinescens

● Artemisia tripartita subspecies rupicola 

● Artemisia tripartita subspecies tripartita

● Tanacetum nuttallii

● Artemisia cana subspecies bolanderi 

● Artemisia cana subspecies cana 

● Artemisia cana subspecies viscidula

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

ATTACHMENT B: List of All Sagebrush Species and 

Subspecies Included in the Selection Criteria for

Building the EVT and BpS Layers September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 329

● Artemisia tridentata subspecies wyomingensis 

● Artemisia tridentata subspecies tridentata

● Artemisia tridentata subspecies vaseyana

● Artemisia tridentata subspecies spiciformis

● Artemisia tridentata subspecies xericensis

● Artemisia tridentata variety pauciflora 

● Artemisia frigida

● Artemisia pedatifida 

D.6.9. ATTACHMENT C: User and Producer Accuracies for 

Aggregated Ecological Systems within LANDFIRE Map Zones

Table D.9. User and Producer Accuracies for Aggregated Ecological Systems within 

LANDFIRE Map Zones

LANDFIRE Map Zone 

Name User Accuracy Producer Accuracy % of Map Zone within Historic Schroeder

Wyoming Basin 76.9% 90.9% 98.5%

Snake River Plain 68.8% 85.2% 98.4%

Missouri River Plateau 57.7% 100.0% 91.3%

Grand Coulee Basin of the 

Columbia Plateau

80.0% 80.0% 89.3%

Wyoming Highlands 75.3% 85.9% 88.1%

Western Great Basin 69.3% 75.4% 72.9%

Blue Mountain Region of 

the Columbia Plateau

85.7% 88.7% 72.7%

Eastern Great Basin 62.7% 80.0% 62.8%

Northwestern Great Plains 76.5% 92.9% 46.3%

Northern Rocky Mountains 72.5% 89.2% 42.5%

Utah High Plateaus 81.8% 78.3% 41.5%

Colorado Plateau 65.3% 76.2% 28.8%

Middle Rocky Mountains 78.6% 73.3% 26.4%

Cascade Mountain Range 57.1% 88.9% 17.3%

Sierra Nevada Mountain 

Range

0.0% 0.0% 12.3%

Northwestern Rocky 

Mountains

66.7% 60.0% 7.3%

Southern Rocky Mountains 58.6% 56.7% 7.0%

Northern Cascades 75.0% 75.0% 2.6%

Mogollon Rim 66.7% 100.0% 1.7%

Death Valley Basin 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%

There are two anomalous map zones with 0% user and producer accuracies, attributable to no 

available reference data for the ecological systems of interest.

User accuracy is a map-based accuracy that is computed by looking at the reference data for a 

class and determining the percentage of correct predictions for these samples. For example, if I 

select any sagebrush pixel on the classified map, what is the probability that I'll be standing in 

a sagebrush stand when I visit that pixel location in the field? Commission Error equates to 

including a pixel in a class when it should have been excluded (i.e., commission error = 1 – 

user’s accuracy).

September 2015

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy

ATTACHMENT C: User and Producer Accuracies

for Aggregated Ecological Systems within

LANDFIRE Map Zones
330 Worland Approved RMP

Producer accuracy is a reference-based accuracy that is computed by looking at the predictions 

produced for a class and determining the percentage of correct predictions. In other words, if 

I know that a particular area is sagebrush (I've been out on the ground to check), what is the 

probability that the digital map will correctly identify that pixel as sagebrush? Omission Error 

equates to excluding a pixel that should have been included in the class (i.e., omission error = 

1 – producer’s accuracy). 

D.7. COT Objective 6: Prioritize, Fund, and Implement Research 

To Address Existing Uncertainties

Increased funding and support for key research projects that will address 

uncertainties associated with Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitat 

management is essential. Effective amelioration of threats can only be 

accomplished if the mechanisms by which those threats are imposed on the 

redundancy, representation, and resilience of the species and its habitats are 

understood. (COT Report, 2013) 

In accordance with BLM policy, the Record of Decision and Approved Plan will establish 

intervals and standards for evaluations as part of the implementation strategy. Priorities will 

be established based on the identified threats in the planning area, the conservation objectives 

included as part of the Approved Plan, and any potential uncertainties associated with Greater

Sage-Grouse and associated habitat management. A part of this strategy will include development 

of a budget to accomplish each of the identified tasks and fund potential research topics to 

address any uncertainties.

As new science pertaining to Greater Sage-Grouse and habitat is continuously evolving, refined 

management strategies may be necessary to ensure that BLM is utilizing the most current 

science, information, and data regarding Greater Sage-Grouse. It is for this reason that BLM has 

collaborated with the State of Wyoming and USFWS to develop an adaptive management strategy 

as a part of the planning process.

D.7.1. Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive Management 

Plan

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

unintended negative impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat will be addressed before 

consequences become severe or irreversible. This adaptive management plan: 

● utilizes science based soft and hard adaptive management triggers,

● addresses multiple scales of data, and

● utilizes an adaptive management working group. 

Adaptive Management Triggers 

Adaptive management triggers are essential for identifying when potential management changes 

are needed in order to continue meeting Greater Sage-Grouse conservation objectives. With 

respect to Greater Sage-Grouse, all regulatory entities in Wyoming, including the BLM, use soft 

and hard triggers. Soft and hard triggers are focused on three metrics: 1) number of active leks, 2) 

acres of available habitat, and 3) population trends based on annual lek counts. The hard and soft 

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

COT Objective 6: Prioritize, Fund, and Implement

Research To Address Existing Uncertainties September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 331

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive

September 2015 Management Plan

trigger data will be analyzed as soon as it becomes available after the signing of the ROD and 

then at a minimum, analyzed annually thereafter.

Soft Triggers: 

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

intended results of conservation action or that unanticipated changes to populations or habitats 

have occurred that have the potential to place habitats or populations at risk. The soft trigger is 

any deviation from normal trends in habitat or population in any given year. Metrics include, but 

are not limited to, annual lek counts, wing counts, aerial surveys, habitat monitoring, and DDCT 

evaluations. For population metrics, normal population trends are calculated as the 5-year running 

mean of annual population counts. BLM field offices, with the assistance of their respective 

land and resource management plan implementation groups, local WGFD offices, and local 

Greater Sage-Grouse working groups will evaluate the metrics with the Adaptive Management 

Working Group (AMWG) on an annual basis. The purpose of these strategies is to address 

localized Greater Sage-Grouse population and habitat changes by providing the framework in 

which management will change if monitoring identifies negative population and habitat anomalies 

in order to avoid crossing a hard trigger threshold. 

Hard Triggers: 

Hard triggers are indicators that management is not achieving desired conservation results. 

Hard triggers would be considered a catastrophic indicator that the species is not responding to 

conservation actions, or that a larger-scale impact or set of impacts is having a negative effect.

Within the range of normal population variables (5-year running mean of annual population 

counts), hard triggers shall be determined to take effect when two of the three metrics exceeds 

60 percent of normal variability for the area under management in a single year, or when any of 

the three metrics exceeds 40 percent of normal variability for a three year time period within a 

five-year range of analysis. A minimum of three consecutive years in a five-year period is used to 

determine trends (i.e., years 1-2-3, years 2-3-4, years 3-4-5).

Adaptive Management Response

Soft Trigger Response: 

Soft triggers require immediate monitoring and surveillance to determine causal factors and 

may require curtailment of activities in the short- or long-term, as allowed by law. The project 

level adaptive management strategies will identify appropriate responses where the project’s

activities are identified as the causal factor. The management agency (BLM) and the AMWG will 

implement an appropriate response strategy to address causal factors not attributable to a specific 

project or to make adjustments at a larger regional or state-wide level.

Hard Trigger Response: 

Upon determination that a hard trigger has been tripped, the BLM will immediately defer issuance 

of discretionary authorizations for new actions for a period of 90 days. In addition, within 14 

days of a determination that a hard trigger has been tripped, the AMWG will convene to develop 

an interim response strategy and initiate an assessment to determine the causal factor or factors 

(hereafter called the causal factor assessment).

Interim Strategy
332 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive 

Management Plan September 2015

An interim response strategy will be developed, and implemented to the extent permitted by law, 

within 90 days of determination that a hard trigger has been tripped. The technical team (see 

Implementation Groups below) will be consulted to identify the scope and scale of the interim 

strategy. Based on the recommendation of the AMWG, the BLM will implement an interim 

response strategy through an Instruction Memorandum or other management mechanisms to 

direct management until the causal factor(s) and appropriate response(s) can be determined. 

The interim response strategy will consist of appropriate management measures undertaken at 

the project stage, supported by the best available science, to address the specific metric which 

has been tripped and may include deferral of some activities as appropriate. Measures that 

were analyzed in this EIS and the COT, NTT reports, and National Policy Team guidance will 

be reviewed in addition to current science to identify the most appropriate measures to be 

implemented as part of the interim response strategy. The BLM will comply with all applicable 

law in implementing such response(s), and, if applicable, will undertake a plan amendment or 

revision under BLM’s planning regulations and policies. 

The interim strategy will be implemented for the biologically significant unit, which, in Wyoming, 

is PHMAs, regardless of whether PHMAs cross multiple planning boundaries. If it has been 

identified that more than one PHMA has the same hard triggers being tripped, or is trending 

towards triggers being tripped, the interim strategy will be implemented at the appropriate scale.

Causal Factor Assessment

The causal factor assessment will be completed within 180 days of determination that a hard 

trigger threshold has been crossed. Once the causal factor assessment is completed by the 

AMWG, the interim response strategy will be modified to adequately address the causal factors 

in consultation with the technical team. If a causal factor or factors cannot be identified, the 

interim response strategy shall stay in place until the cause can be determined and any new 

planning decision can be implemented. 

EIS Level Projects

Each major project (EIS level) will include adaptive management strategies in support of the 

population management objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse set by the State of Wyoming, and 

will be consistent with the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive Management Plan. These 

adaptive management strategies will be developed in partnership with the AMWG, WGFD, 

project proponents, partners, and stakeholders, incorporating the best available science.

Implementation Groups

Sage-Grouse Implementation Team 

The State of Wyoming’s strategy is implemented by the Sage-Grouse Implementation Team 

(SGIT), established by Executive Order in 2008 and codified in 2014 by the Wyoming Legislature 

(W.S. § 9-19-101). The SGIT is a Governor appointed body with representation by federal 

agencies (BLM USFWS, Natural Resources Conservation Service), state agencies (Wyoming 

Game and Fish Commission, Department of Agriculture, Department of Environmental Quality, 

Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust Fund, Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and Office of 

State Lands and Investments), the Wyoming Legislature, county governments, energy developers, 

mining companies, landowners, and non- governmental organizations. The BLM, US Fish and 

Wildlife Service NRCS and the US Forest Service all have an equal role in the SGIT.
Worland Approved RMP 333

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat

Management Strategy 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive

September 2015 Management Plan

Land and Resource Management Plan – Implementation Teams 

Land and Resource Management Plans are implemented through implementation teams. These 

implementation teams include cooperating agencies who participated in the development of this 

land use plan representing local, state, and federal agencies. These implementation teams will 

coordinate with the AMWG and others to evaluate metrics and management responses necessary 

to meet Greater Sage-Grouse conservation objectives within their planning area. 

Adaptive Management Working Group and Technical Team 

An Adaptive Management Working Group (AMWG) will be established in consultation with the 

SGIT to provide appropriate guidance for agencies with the ability to affect Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations and/or habitat through their permitting authority. The AMWG will include BLM, 

USFS, USFWS, and State of Wyoming. The purpose of this group will be to initiate a response 

strategy should it be determined that a hard trigger has been tripped or if soft triggers are showing 

a trend across a region. A hard trigger may be tripped at any time, thus, upon identification of 

such event, current available population and habitat data will be reviewed by the AMWG with 

the assistance of a technical team comprised of agency biologists, scientists familiar with the 

Management Zone in question, and other individuals as appropriate (e.g., habitat managers, 

respective landowners, other appropriate representatives) to confirm that a hard trigger has been 

tripped. Upon verification of data showing that a hard trigger has been tripped, the AMWG

will convene within 14 days. 

The AMWG will review monitoring data which has been collected by the appropriate local 

Greater Sage-Grouse working groups in conformance with data collection standards. This group 

will meet annually to review all data collected in the prior year regarding Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations and habitats. Monitoring data will have been analyzed (by WGFD for population 

based metrics (leks, wing counts, etc., and by land managers [BLM, USFS, State of Wyoming] 

for habitat based metrics [DDCT, etc.]) Should the monitoring data suggest a trend toward a soft 

or hard trigger being tripped, they will 1. Identify what metric is indicating that trend (population 

or habitat); and 2. Identify a technical team to review the data and compile a range of activities 

which may be causing the trend. Should review of the monitoring data identify that multiple soft 

triggers have been tripped in one PHMA, or the same triggers have been tripped across multiple 

PHMAs, the technical team will be tasked with verifying the scope and intensity of the trends. 

Once the analysis of the trends has been completed by the technical team and reported back to 

the AMWG, the AMWG will make recommendations to the appropriate land managing agency 

regarding an interim adaptive management strategy to be implemented. Implementation will 

occur via the appropriate regulations and policy applicable for that agency. At that time, the State 

of Wyoming will conduct a review of the regulatory authority implementing the Sage Grouse Core 

Area Strategy to determine if a State of Wyoming adaptive management strategy iswarranted.

Upon review of the annual data by the AMWG and technical team, the State of Wyoming, as 

part of the AMWG, will contact neighboring states within the respective Management Zone to 

inform them of any findings. Should a hard trigger be tripped, the trigger which has been tripped 

and any recommended adaptive management strategy being implemented will be shared with 

the appropriate neighboring state(s). Should the need arise for implementation of a multi-state 

adaptive management strategy; the AMWG will coordinate to develop an effective response. 

Small Leks
334 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Strategy

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive 

Management Plan September 2015

Small leks will be given special consideration. Due to geographic variations a definition of 

“small” is not provided, rather determination of “small” will be made by the AMWG based upon 

recommendations of the scientific community. Generally, “small” is considered 10 or fewer males 

for a three year time period within a five-year range of analysis. If a trigger is hit based upon such 

a lek, then the adaptive management working group will evaluate the site-specific circumstances 

and determine appropriate remedial action.

Glossary Terms

Additionality:

The conservation benefits of compensatory mitigation are demonstrably new and would not 

have resulted without the compensatory mitigation project. (BLM Manual Section 1794). 

Avoidance mitigation: 

Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action (40 CFR 

1508.20(a)) (e.g., may also include avoiding the impact by moving the proposed action to a 

different time or location).

Compensatory mitigation:

The restoration, creation, enhancement, and/or preservation of impacted resources (adopted 

and modified from 33 CFR 332), such as on-the-ground actions to improve and/or protect 

habitats (e.g., chemical vegetation treatments, land acquisitions, conservation easements.

Compensatory mitigation projects: 

Specific, on-the-ground actions to improve and/or protect habitats (e.g., chemical vegetation 

treatments, land acquisitions, conservation easements). 

Compensatory mitigation sites: 

The durable areas where compensatory mitigation projects will occur. 

Durability (protective and ecological):

The maintenance of the effectiveness of a mitigation site and project for the duration of 

the associated impacts, which includes resource, administrative/legal, and financial 

considerations. 

Minimization mitigation:

Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation 

(40 CFR 1508.20 (b)). 

Residual impacts:

Impacts from an authorized land use that remain after applying avoidance and minimization 

mitigation; also referred to as unavoidable impacts.

Timeliness:

The lack of a time lag between impacts and the achievement of compensatory mitigation goals 

and objectives (BLM Manual Section 1794). 
Worland Approved RMP 335

Appendix E Laws, Regulations, Policies,

and Guidance 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive

September 2015 Management Plan

Appendix E. Laws, Regulations, Policies, 

and Guidance

This appendix lists the various laws, regulations, policies, and directives applicable to 

management of Bureau of Land Management-administered lands within the planning area, 

including the following: 

● Table E.1, “Federal Laws and Statutes” (p. 335); 

● Table E.2, “Bureau of Land Management Regulations and Policies” (p. 338); 

● Table E.3, “Applicable Wyoming State Laws and Regulations” (p. 343); and

● Table E.4, “Memoranda and Agreements” (p. 344). 

Please note the lists of laws, regulations, policies, and directives included in this appendix are 

not all inclusive.

Table E.1. Federal Laws and Statutes 

Federal Law or Statute Year

Acquired Lands Act – Act of August 7, 1947; 61 Stat. 913 1947

Act of April 23, 1932; 47 Stat. 136 1932

Act of August 13, 1954 (68 Stat. 708, 30 U.S.C. 521 subpart) 1954

Act of July 23, 1955 (Pub. L. 167; 43 CFR 3710) 1955

Act of June 30, 1950 (16 U.S.C. 508(C) and (e)) 1950

Act of October 30, 1978 (92 Stat. 2073-2075) 1978

Act of September 1, 1949, Section 3 (30 U.S.C. 192c) 1949

Act of September 28, 1962 (Pub. L. 87-713, 76 Stat. 652) 1962

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 1996) 1978

Antiquities Act (P.L. 59-209; 34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 431-433) 1906

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (P.L. 96-95; 93 Stat. 721; 16 U.S.C. 47Oaa et seq.) as 

amended (P.L. 100-555; P.L. 100-588)

1979

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 469-469c-1, P.L. 86-523, 74 Stat. 

220, 88 Stat. 174)

1974

Archeological and Paleontological Salvage for Federal Highway Projects (23 U.S.C. 305; 72 

Stat. 913 (1958), 74 Stat. 525 (1960)

1960

Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d, 54 Stat. 250) 1940

Carey Act of August 18, 1894 as amended (43 U.S.C. 641 et seq.) 1894

Carlson-Foley Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 1241-1243) 1968

Classification and Multiple Use Act of September 19, 1964 (78 Stat. 986, 43 U.S.C. 1411–18) 1964

Clean Air Act, as amended 1963

Coastal Zone Management Act (P.L. 92-583, 16 U.S.C. 1451-1456) 1972

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42

U.S.C. 9601)

1980

Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3226, Climate Change and the Department of 

the Interior

2001

Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3336, Rangeland Fire Prevention, Management 

and Restoration

2015

Desert Land Act (19 Stat. 377; 43 U.S.C. 321-323), as amended 1877

Domestic Minerals Program Extension Act 1953

Earl Douglass, 44 L.D. 325, August 6, 1915 1915

Economy Act 1932, as amended, (P.L. 72-211; 47 Stat. 417; 31 U.S.C. 686) 1932

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (42 U.S.C. 11001-11050) 1986

Emergency Wetland Resources Act 1986

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended 1973
336 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix E Laws, Regulations, Policies, and 

Guidance

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive 

Management Plan September 2015

Federal Law or Statute Year

Energy Independence and Security Act 2007

Energy Policy Act (P.L. 109–58) 2005

Executive Order – Public Water Reserve 107 1926

Executive Order 10355 – Delegating to the Secretary of the Interior the Authority of the 

President to withdraw or reserve lands of the United States for public purposes

1952

Executive Order 11514 – Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality 1970

Executive Order 11593 – Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment 1971

Executive Order 11644 – Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands 1972

Executive Order 11738 – Administration of the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act

1973

Executive Order 11987 – Exotic Organisms 1977

Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management 1977

Executive Order 11989 – Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands 1977

Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands 1977

Executive Order 11991 – Relating to protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality 1977

Executive Order 12088 – Federal Compliance with Applicable Pollution Control 1978

Executive Order 12580 – Superfund Implementation and 13016 – Amendment to Executive 

Orders 12580

1987 and 1996

Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites 1996

Executive Order 13084 – Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 1998

Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species 1999

Executive Order 13148 – Greening of the Government through Leadership in Environmental 

Management

2000

Executive Order 13175 – Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 2000

Executive Order 13816 – Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds 2001

Executive Order 13195 – Trails for America in the 21st Century 2001

Executive Order 13212 – Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects 2003

Executive Order 13287 – Preserve America 2003

Executive Order 6910 and Executive Order 6964, and amendments 1934

Federal Aid Highway Act (23 U.S.C. 107(d) and 317) 1958

Federal Cave Resources Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4301 – 4309) 1988

Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act (90 Stat. 1083-1092), as amended 1976

Federal Coal Management Program Coal Screening Process (43 Code of Federal Regulations 

[CFR] 3420.1-4)

1997

Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992 1992

Federal Land Policy and Management Act 1976

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act 2004

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (section 15), as amended (7 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.); the first 

section and section 15 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 2801 note and 7 U.S.C. 2814)

1974

Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act 1982

Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150aa et seq.) 1957

Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 1949

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 - 1376), as amended 1948

Federal Water Projects Recreation Act (16 U.S.C 460(L)(12)- 460(L)(21)), as amended 1965

Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy 2001

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 2901-2911) 1980

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), as amended 1934

Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3801-3862) 1985

General Allotment Act, Section 4 (25 U.S.C 334), as amended 1887

General Mining Law of 1872, as amended 1872

Healthy Forests Restoration Act (P.L. 108-148) 2003

Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.) 1935

Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (31 United States Code [U.S.C.] 9701) 1952

Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42), as amended 1988
Worland Approved RMP 337

Appendix E Laws, Regulations, Policies,

and Guidance 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive

September 2015 Management Plan

Federal Law or Statute Year

Land and Water Conservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 4601-4) 1965

Lode Law Act of 1866 (14 Statute 251) 1866

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715-715r) 1929

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) 1918

Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended (30 U.S.C. 351 et seq.) 1947

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) 1920

Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) 1970

Mining Claim Rights Restoration Act (30 U.S.C. 621-625) 1955

Multiple Mineral Development Act of August 13, 1954 (30 U.S.C. 521-531 et seq.) 1954

National Environmental Policy Act 1969

National Fire Plan 2000

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470) 1966

National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1241-1249), as amended 1968

National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 

96-479, 94 Stat. 2305)

1980

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300) 1998

National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1242 and 1243) 1978

National Trails System Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1241 et seq.), as amended 1968

National Wild & Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) 1968

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.) 1990

Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act (43 CFR 2361.1(f)) 1976

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (P.L. 106-247) 2000

Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

4701 et seq.)

1990

Noxious Weed Control Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-412) 2004

O&C Lands Act of 1937 (62 Stat. 162) 1948

Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) 1970

Oil Pollution Act (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) 1990

Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009 (P.L.111–11) 2009

Placer Law - Act of July 9, 1870 (16 Stat. 217) 1870

Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772) 2000

Pollution Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 13101) 1990

Public Range Improvement Act (43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) 1978

Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) 1978

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 (5 U.S.C. Section 402) 1946

Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 469), as amended by Archeological and Historic 

Preservation Act of 1974

1960

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) and the 

Bevill Amendment (Section 3001(b) (3) (A) (ii) and 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7))

1976

Riparian-Wetlands Initiative for the 1990s, The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, January 22, 1992

1992

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (10 U.S.C. 1899, Section 10) 1899

Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended 1977 (Pub. L. 95-190; 42 U.S.C. 201, 300 et seq.) 1977

San Juan Basin Wilderness Protection Act of 1984 (16 U.S.C. § 1132) 1984

Sikes Act of 1974, as amended (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.) 1974

Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (16 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) 1977

Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1935, as amended (16 U.S.C. 590) 1935

Soil Information Assistance for Community Planning and Resource Development Act of 1966 

(42 U.S.C. 3271)

1966

Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916 as amended (43 U.S.C. 299) 1916

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) 1977

Surface Resources Act of 1955 (30 U.S.C. 611-614) 1955

The Act of June 28, 1934; Section 7 (43 U.S.C. 315f), as amended 1934

The Airport and Airway Improvement Act, Section 516 (49 U.S.C. 2215) 1982
338 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix E Laws, Regulations, Policies, and 

Guidance

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive 

Management Plan September 2015

Federal Law or Statute Year

The Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) 1977

The Engle Act (43 U.S.C. 155 et seq.) 1958

The Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), as amended 1970

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (43 U.S.C. 460 et seq.) 1965

The Materials Act of July 31, 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601-604), as amended 1947

The Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 1970

The Multiple Mineral Development Act (30 U.S.C. 521-531 et seq.) 1954

The Recreation and Public Purposes Act (43 U.S.C. 869), as amended in 1988 1926

The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131), as amended 1964

Toxic Substance and Control Act of 1976 (PL104-66), as amended in 1995 1976

U.S. v. Peck, No. 97-8122, 1999 WL 33022 1999

Unified Federal Policy for a Watershed Approach to Federal Land and Resource Management 2000

U.S. Onshore Orders:

Onshore Order No. 1 – Approval of operations on onshore Federal and Indian oil and gas 

leases

Onshore Order No. 2 – Onshore oil and gas drilling operations on Federal and Indian oil 

and gas leases

Onshore Order No. 3 – Site security on Federal oil and gas leases 

Onshore Order No. 4 – Measurement of oil on Federal oil and gas leases 

Onshore Order No. 5 – Measurement of gas on Federal oil and gas leases

Onshore Order No. 6 – Hydrogen sulfide operations on Federal oil and gas leases 

Onshore Order No. 7 – Disposal of produced water from Federal oil and gas leases

2007

1988

1989

1989

1989

1991

1993

Water Quality Act of 1987, as amended from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1977 

(Clean Water Act) as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)

1987

Water Resources Development Act 1974

Water Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C. 1962a - 1962(a)(4)(e)), as amended 1965

Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) 1954

Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Agreements (“Wyden Amendment”) (Public Law 

(PL)-104-208, Sec. 124, PL 10-5-277, Sec. 136 of the 1999 Interior Appropriations Act of 1998)

1998

Wild and Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act (P.L. 92-195) 1971

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) 1968

Table E.2. Bureau of Land Management Regulations and Policies 

BLM Directive Year

Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) National Strategic Plan 2006

Applications for Permit to Drill (APD) 2007

Applications for Permit to Drill Fees 2007

BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy 2004

BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Charter 2011

BLM Policy Statement on Riparian Area Management 1987

BLM Wyoming Riparian Management Activity Guide 1991

BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species Policy and List 2002

Cave Management (43 CFR 37.4(c)) and (37.11(c)(3)(iii)) 1988

Competitive Leasing (43 CFR 3120) 2002

Delegation of Authority, Cooperative Agreements, & Contracts for Oil & Gas Inspection (43 

CFR 3190)

1987

Federal Coal Management Program Regulations (43 CFR Group 3400) 1979

Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands 1991

Fish and Wildlife 2000 BLM National, State and District policies 2000

Geothermal Resource Leasing (43 CFR 3200) 1998

Geothermal Resources Unit Agreements (43 CFR 3280) 1973

Grazing Administration Range Improvements and Water Rights (43 CFR 4100 et seq.) 2002 (revised)

Handbook H-1112-2, Safety and Health for Field Operations Manual 1998
Worland Approved RMP 339

Appendix E Laws, Regulations, Policies,

and Guidance 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive

September 2015 Management Plan

BLM Directive Year

Handbook H-1601-1, Land Use Planning 2005

Handbook H-1703-1, Response Actions NCP/CERCLA 2001

Handbook H-1734-1, Interagency Ecological Site Handbook for Rangelands 2013

Handbook H-1740-2, Integrated Vegetation Management 2008

Handbook H-1741-1, Fencing 1989

Handbook H-1741-2, Water Developments 1990

Handbook H-1742-1, Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook 2007

Handbook H-1745-1, Introduction, Transplant, Augmentation and Reestablishment of Fish, 

Wildlife & Plants

2001

Handbook H-1790-1, National Environmental Policy Act 2008

Handbook H-2101-4, Pre-Acquisition Environmental Site Assessments 2000

Handbook H-2101-5, Environmental Site Assessments for Disposal of Real Property 2004

Handbook H-2200-1, Land Exchange Handbook 2005

Handbook H-3042-1, Solid Minerals Reclamation Handbook 1992

Handbook H-3101-1, Issuance of Leases 1987

Handbook H-3109-1, Leasing under Special Acts 1995

Handbook H-3110-1, Noncompetitive Leases 1993

Handbook H-3120-1, Competitive Leases (Revised) 2013

Handbook H-3150-1, Onshore Oil and Gas Geophysical Exploration Surface Management 

Requirements

2007

Handbook H-3160-9, Communitization 1988

Handbook H-3600-1, Mineral Materials Disposal 2002

Handbook H-3720-1, Abandoned Mine Land Program Policy 2007

Handbook H-3809-1, for Mineral Examiners, v. 3-332, Sept., 11, 2007 2007

Handbook H-3809-3, Validity Mineral Reports, June 1969 1969

Handbook H-4180-1, Rangeland Health Standards 2001

Handbook H-4700-1, Wild Horses and Burros Management Handbook 2010

Handbook H-8120-1, General Procedural Guidance for Native American Consultation 2004

Handbook H-8270-1, General Procedural Guidance for Paleontological Resource Management 1998

Handbook H-8342, Travel and Transportation Handbook 2012

Handbook H-9011, Chemical Pest Control 2013

Handbook H-9112, Bridges and Major Culverts 2011

Handbook H-9113-1, Roads Design Handbook 2011

Handbook H-9211-1, Fire Planning Handbook 2012

Instruction Memorandum 1989-201, Legal Responsibilities of BLM for Oil and Gas Leasing 

and Operations on Split Estate Lands

1989

Instruction Memorandum 99-039, Issuance of Grazing Permits in Compliance with Applicable 

Laws, Regulations and Policy

1999

Instruction Memorandum 1999-076, Policy on the Use of Certified Weed-Free Hay, Straw, 

and Mulch on BLM Lands

1999

Information Bulletin 2002-101, Cultural Resource Considerations in Resource Management 

Plans

2002

Instruction Memorandum 2002-034, Recent Changes in Management Direction: Federal 

Wildland Fire Management Policy, National Fire Plan

2002

Instruction Memorandum 2002-164, Guidance to Address Environmental Justice (EJ) in Land 

Use Plans and Related National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents

2002

Instruction Memorandum 2002-196, Right-of-Way Management-Land Use Planning 2002

Instruction Memorandum 2003-020, Interim Wind Energy Development Policy 2003

Instruction Memorandum 2003-131, Permitting Oil and Gas on Split Estate Lands and Guidance 

for Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1

2003

Instruction Memorandum 2003-147, Application for Permit to Drill – Process Improvement #3

– Cultural Resources

2003

Instruction Memorandum 2005-003, Cultural Resources and Tribal Consultation for Fluid 

Minerals Leasing

2005
340 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix E Laws, Regulations, Policies, and 

Guidance

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive 

Management Plan September 2015

BLM Directive Year

Instruction Memorandum 2005-014, Water Disposal and Land Application Disposal (LAD) 

in the Powder River Basin

2005

Instruction Memorandum 2005-069, Offsite Compensatory Mitigation Guidelines 2005

Instruction Memorandum 2005-176, Filing of Protests on lands Included in Oil and Gas Lease 

Sales

2005

Instruction Memorandum 2005-210, Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) Inventory –

Data Compilation for Phases III and IV

2005

Instruction Memorandum 2005-227, NHPA Section 106 and Oil and Gas Permitting 2005

Instruction Memorandum 2005-247, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance 

for Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Development

2005

Instruction Memorandum 2006-071, Process Improvement for Oil, Gas, Geothermal, 

Geophysical, and Related Rights-of-Way Approvals

2006

Instruction Memorandum 2006-073, Weed-Free Seed Use on Lands Administered by the Bureau 

of Land Management

2006

Instruction Memorandum 2006-145, Cooperative Conservation Based Strategic Plan for the 

Abandoned Mine Lands Program

2006

Instruction Memorandum 2006-060, Incorporating Benefits-Based Management within 

Recreation and Visitor Services Program Policy Change

2006

Instruction Memorandum 2006-197, BLM Energy and Non-Energy Mineral Policy 2006

Instruction Memorandum 2006-206, Oil and Gas Bond Adequacy Reviews 2006

Instruction Memorandum 2006-216, Wind Energy Development Policy 2006

Instruction Memorandum 2007-043, A Unified Strategy to Implement “BLM’s Priorities for 

Recreation and Visitor Services” Workplan (Purple Book)

2007

Instruction Memorandum 2007-096, Refinement of the Methodology to Identify Abandoned 

Mine Land Sites Near Populated Places and High Use Areas

2007

Instruction Memorandum 2007-097, Solar Energy Development Policy 2007

Instruction Memorandum 2008-009, Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) System for 

Paleontological Resources on Public Lands

2007

Instruction Memorandum 2008-014, Clarification of Guidance and Integration of Comprehensive 

Travel and Transportation Management Planning into Land Use Planning

2008

Instruction Memorandum 2008-030, Instructions for Implementing the Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (Final PEIS) Record of Decision

2008

Instruction Memorandum 2008-032, Exceptions, Waivers, and Modifications of Fluid Minerals 

Stipulations and Conditions of Approval, and Associated Rights-of-way Terms and Conditions

2007

Instruction Memorandum 2008-190, Ensuring Compliance with all Abandoned Mine Lands 

(AML) Program Policies and Procedures

2008

Instruction Memorandum 2009-011, Assessment and Mitigation of Potential Impacts to 

Paleontological Resources

2008

Instruction Memorandum 2009-113, Casual Collecting of Common Invertebrate and Plant 

Paleontological Resources under the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009

2009

Instruction Memorandum 2009-018, Process for Setting Priorities for Issuing Grazing Permits 

and Leases

2008

Instruction Memorandum 2009-039, Transmittal of Revised 6840 Special Status Species Manual 

and Direction for State Directors to Review and Revise Existing Bureau Sensitive Species Lists

2009

Instruction Memorandum 2009-043, Wind Energy Development Policy 2009

Instruction Memorandum 2009-078, Processing Oil and Gas Applications for Permit to Drill 

for Directional Drilling into Federal Mineral Estate from Multiple-Well Pads on Non-Federal 

Surface and Mineral Estate Locations

2009

Instruction Memorandum 2009-153, Financial Guarantees for Notices and Plans of Operations 2009

Instruction Memorandum 2010-022, Managing Structures for the Safety of Sage-grouse, 

Sharp-tailed grouse, and Lesser Prairie-chicken

2010

Instruction Memorandum 2010-088, Guidance on 43 CFR 3809.100 and its Application 2010

Instruction Memorandum 2010-113, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Boundary Data 

Standard

2010
Worland Approved RMP 341

Appendix E Laws, Regulations, Policies,

and Guidance 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive

September 2015 Management Plan

BLM Directive Year

Instruction Memorandum 2010-117, Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Land Use Planning and 

Lease Parcel Reviews

2010

Instruction Memorandum 2010-181, White-nose Syndrome 2010

Instruction Memorandum 2011-004, Transmittal of Revised Recreation and Visitor Services 

Land Use Planning Guidance

2010

Instruction Memorandum 2012-043, Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies and 

Procedures

2011

Instruction Memorandum 2012-044, BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning 

Strategy

2011

Instruction Memorandum 2012-067, Clarification of Cultural Resource Considerations for 

Off-Highway Vehicle Designations and Travel Management

2012

Instruction Memorandum 2012-140, Collecting Paleontological Resources Under the 

Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009

2012

Instruction Memorandum 2012-141, Confidentiality of Paleontological Locality Information 

Under the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009

2012

Instruction Memorandum 2012-169, Resource Management Plan Alternative Development 

for Livestock Grazing

2012

Instruction Memorandum 2013-106, Bureau of Land Management Manual No. 6310 and 6320 -

Additional Guidance Regarding Public and Cooperating Agency Involvement in and Access to 

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Information and the Land Use Planning Process

2013

Instruction Memorandum 2013-128, Sage-Grouse Conservation in Fire Operations and Fuels 

Management

2013

Instruction Memorandum 2013-142, Interim Policy, Draft - Regional Mitigation Manual Section

- 1794

2013

Instruction Memorandum 2013-184, Relinquishment of Grazing Permitted Use on the Bureau 

of Land Management Administered Lands

2013

Instruction Memorandum WY-98-061, Guidance for Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring 

for the Implementation of Standard Number Five of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy 

Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing

1998

Instruction Memorandum WY-2001-040, Issuance of BLM (Wyoming) Sensitive Species 

Policy and List

2001

Instruction Memorandum WY-2003-011 2002

Instruction Memorandum WY-2005-034, Travel Management Guidelines for the Public Lands 

in Wyoming

2005

Instruction Memorandum WY-2005-046, Conservation Measures and Best Management 

Practices for the Management of Potential Gray Wolf Habitat

2005

Instruction Memorandum WY-2005-058, Conservation Measures and Best Management 

Practices for the Management of Potential Canada Lynx Habitat

2005

Instruction Memorandum WY-2006-009, Mass Appraisal – Wyoming Minimum Rental Rates 

(Small Site Appraisals) – Appraisal Services Directorate

2006

Instruction Memorandum WY-2006-037, Conservation Measures and Best Management 

Practices for the Management of Potential Black-footed Ferret Habitat

2006

Instruction Memorandum WY-2006-049, Conservation Measures and Best Management 

Practices for the Management of Grizzly Bear Habitat

2006

Instruction Memorandum WY-2007-018, Conservation Measures and Best Management 

Practices for the Management of Mountain Plover Habitat

2007

Instruction Memorandum WY-2010-012, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Policy on 

Wyoming Bureau of Land Management Administered Public Lands including the Federal 

Mineral Estate

2010

Instruction Memorandum WY-2010-013, Oil and Gas Leasing Screen for Greater Sage-Grouse 2010

Instructional Memorandum WY-2012-019, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Policy 

on Wyoming Bureau of Land Management Administered Public Lands Including the Federal 

Mineral Estate

2011

Instruction Memorandum WY-2012-032, Wyoming BLM Reclamation Policy 2012
342 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix E Laws, Regulations, Policies, and 

Guidance

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive 

Management Plan September 2015

BLM Directive Year

Instruction Memorandum WY-2013-046, Transmittal of Mineral Materials Memorandum of 

Understanding

2013

Instruction Memorandum WY-87-672, August 26, 1987 1987

Instruction Memorandum WY-89-402, Inspection and Enforcement Program for Locatable 

Minerals Activities

1989

Instruction Memorandum WY-97-111, Report of Conformance of BLM Land Use Plans with 

the Standards and Guidelines on the Public Lands; Follow-up Maintenance of Land Use Plans

1997

Instruction Memorandum WY-99-20, Complying with Section 106 in Conformance with 

IM-99-039

1999

Manual Section 1601, Land Use Planning 2000

Manual Section 1613, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 1988

Manual Section 1626, Travel and Transportation Manual 2011

Manual Section 1703, Hazardous Materials Management 2007

Manual Section 1734, Rangeland Interagency Ecological Site Manual 2010

Manual Section 1740, Renewable Resource Improvements and Treatments 2008

Manual Section 1745, Introduction, Transplant, Augmentation & Reestablishment of Fish, 

Wildlife & Plants

1992

Manual Section 2220, Land Exchanges 2005

Manual Section 2800, Cadastral Surveys – General 1985

Manual Section 2880, Mineral Leasing Act Rights-of-Way, Glossary of Terms 2012

Manual Section 3060, Mineral Reports – Preparation and Review, April 7, 1994 1994

Manual Section 3809, Surface Management (1985, revised 2001, 2012) 2012

Manual Section 4100, Grazing Administration – Exclusive of Alaska 2009

Manual Section 4180, Land Health 2001

Manual Section 4700, Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Management 2010

Manual Section 3600, Mineral Materials Disposal 2013

Manual Section 6250, National Scenic and Historic Trail Administration 2012

Manual Section 6280, Management of National Scenic and Historic Trails and Trails Under 

Study or Recommended as Suitable for Congressional Designation

2012

Manual Section 6301, Wilderness Characteristics Inventory 2011

Manual Section 6310, Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands 2012

Manual Section 6320, Considering Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the BLM Land 

Use Planning Process

2012

Manual Section 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas 2012

Manual Section 6400, Wild and Scenic Rivers – Policy and Program Direction for Identification, 

Evaluation, Planning, and Management

2012

Manual Section 6500, Manual of Wildlife, Fish and Plant Resources 2002

Manual Section 6840, Special Status Species Management 1988

Manual Section 6840, Special Status Species Policy 2008

Manual Section 7240, Water Quality 1978

Manual Section 7250, Water Rights 1984

Manual Section 7300 Air Resource Management Program Manual 2009

Manual Section 8100, Cultural Resource Management 2004

Manual Section 8110, Identifying Cultural Resources 2004

Manual Section 8120, Tribal Consultation Under Cultural Resource Authorities 2004

Manual Section 8130, Planning for Uses of Cultural Resources 2004

Manual Section 8140, Protecting Cultural Resources 2004

Manual Section 8160, Native American Consultation and Coordination 1990

Manual Section 8270, Paleontological Resource Management 1998

Manual Section 8340, Off-Road Vehicles 1982

Manual Section 8341, Conditions of Use (Off-Road Vehicles) 1979

Manual Section 8342, Designation of Roads and Trails 1988

Manual Section 8343, Vehicle Operations 1979

Manual Section 8344, Permits 1979
Worland Approved RMP 343

Appendix E Laws, Regulations, Policies,

and Guidance 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive

September 2015 Management Plan

BLM Directive Year

Manual Section 8380, Cave and Karst Resources Management 2008

Manual Section 8400, Visual Resource Management 1980

Manual Section 8410-1, Visual Resource Inventory 1986

Manual Section 8431-1, Visual Resource Contrast Rating 1986

Manual Section 9112, Bridges and Major Culverts 2011

Manual Section 9113, Roads Manual 2011

Manual Section 9211, Fire Planning Manual 2012

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (43 CFR 2006 3425.1-7(a)(2)(iv, v)) 1920

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (43 CFR 2006 3461.5(h)(2)(i)) 1920

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (43 CFR From 3100-11 (July 2006), 43 CFR Part 3160) 1920

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and others ( 43 CFR 2006 3591.1(b)(10)) 1920

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and others (43 CFR 2006 3430.4-4(a)(10); 43 CFR 2006 

3430.4-4(b)(8))

1920

Minerals Management, Generally (43 CFR 3000) 1983

National Contingency Plan Regulations (40 CFR 300) 1994

National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-highway Vehicle Use on BLM Public Lands 2001

National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural 

Properties

1990

Natural Resource Damage Assessment Regulations (43 CFR Part 11) 1986

Noncompetitive Leasing (43 CFR 3110) 1988

Off-Road Vehicle Implementation Strategy Washakie Resource Area 1994

Oil and Gas Leasing (43 CFR 3100) 1983

Onshore Oil and Gas Geophysical Exploration (43 CFR 3150) 1988

Onshore Oil and Gas Operations (43 CFR 3160) 1982

Onshore Oil and Gas Unit Agreements; Unproven Areas (43 CFR 3180) 1983

Permits for Recreation on Public Lands (43 CFR 2930) 2004

Riparian-Wetlands Initiative for the 1990’s, The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management

1992

Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for the 

Public Lands Administered by the BLM in the State of Wyoming

2004

Standards for Healthy Rangelands, Standard #2 1997

Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development: 

The Gold Book

2007

Technical Reference 1734-6 Version 4: Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health 2005

Technical Reference 1737 Series: Riparian Area Management Assessing Proper Functioning 

Condition (PFC) for Lotic and Lentic areas

1998

The Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidance for Livestock Grazing Management (43 

CFR 4180)

1997

Wyoming BLM Coal/Coal Bed Methane Policy 2000

Wyoming Bureau of Land Management Soil Program Ten Year Strategy 2003

Table E.3. Applicable Wyoming State Laws and Regulations 

Wyoming State Laws and Regulations

State of Wyoming Occupational Health and Safety Rules and Regulations

State of Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Rules and Regulations

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Rules and Regulations

Wyoming State Engineer’s Office Statutes, Rules and Regulations

State of Wyoming Water Quality Rules and Regulations

Wyoming Executive Order 2013-3, Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area – Grazing Adjustments

Wyoming Executive Order 2015-4, Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection
344 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix E Laws, Regulations, Policies, and 

Guidance

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive 

Management Plan September 2015

Table E.4. Memoranda and Agreements 

Memoranda and 

Agreements Description Year

Assistance agreement 

KAA990028- 

Abandoned Mine 

Land (AML) 

Reclamation 

Agreement

The AML program in Wyoming currently operates pursuant to this assistance 

agreement between the Wyoming State Office of the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) and the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

(DEQ). It provides for the cooperative effort between the two agencies for

a long-term relationship to efficiently and economically plan for, and share 

responsibilities to ensure, effective abandoned mine land reclamation on public 

lands in Wyoming.

Association of 

Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies (AFWA),

United States Forest 

Service (USFS), 

BLM, United States 

Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS)

Policies and guidelines for fish and wildlife management in National Forest 

and BLM Wilderness.

2006

BLM Memorandum 

of Understanding 

WO-300-2006-07,

April 2006

Facilitate interagency coordination and establish policies and procedures to 

implement Section 225 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

2006

BLM Memorandum 

of Understanding 

WO-230-2010-04

Between the U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM and the USFWS to Promote 

the Conservation of Migratory Birds.

2010

Memorandum of 

Understanding 

among federal land 

managers and EPA 

on oil and gas 

development and 

NEPA

Memorandum of Understanding Among the U.S. Department of Agriculture,

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Regarding Air Quality Analyses and Mitigation for Federal Oil and 

Gas Decisions Through the National Environmental Policy Act Process.

2011

Clean and Diversified 

Energy Initiative

Recommends initiatives to facilitate the timely leasing and permitting of 

geothermal resources.

2005

Cooperative 

Agreements with 

Weed and Pest 

Districts: Big Horn 

County, Hot Springs 

County, Park County, 

Washakie County

Details cooperative efforts for noxious weed control on BLM-administered 

lands by the county weed and pest districts.

Cooperative 

Management 

Agreement between 

BLM, Worland 

District, LU

Sheep Company, 

Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 

(WGFD), Wyoming 

State Board of Land 

Commissioners

Details cooperative efforts for road and motor vehicle management for the 

benefit of watershed and big game within the upper Grass and Enos creek 

drainages.

1989
Worland Approved RMP 345

Appendix E Laws, Regulations, Policies,

and Guidance 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive

September 2015 Management Plan

Memoranda and 

Agreements Description Year

Cooperative 

Management 

Agreement between 

BLM, Worland 

District, WGFD, 

Wyoming State 

Board of Land 

Commissioners, 

Double-H Ranch

Details cooperative efforts for road and motor vehicle management for the 

benefit of watershed and big game within the upper Grass, Enos, Lefthand 

and Middle creek drainages.

June 1994

Double H Ranch 

Access Area

BLM, Double H Ranch, WG&F – Public Access.

Grass Creek Travel 

Management Area

BLM, Wyoming State Board of Land Commissioners, WGFD, LU Sheep 

Company, Travel Management in Grass Creek area.

Interagency 

Agreement between 

the USFS and the 

BLM

Establishes procedures for the administration of oil and gas operations on 

federal leases within the National Forest System.

2006

Interagency between 

BLM and Bureau

of Reclamation 

Agreement

The BLM has jurisdiction over NOIs to conduct geophysical exploration which 

involve Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) lands. The BOR will be contacted for 

their conditions of approval.

Medicine Lodge 

Habitat Management 

Unit Areas

BLM, WGFD – Public Access.

Memorandum of 

Agreement WY-117

Memorandum of Agreement among the BLM and the Wyoming Board of Land 

Commissioners, the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, addresses cultural resource 

protection in state exchanges.

Memorandum of 

Agreement WY-118

Memorandum of Agreement between the BLM and the Wyoming Board of 

Land Commissioners, addresses processing state exchanges.

Memorandum of 

Agreement WY-119

Memorandum of Agreement between the BLM and the Agricultural 

Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS), addresses management of 

agricultural trespass.

Memorandum of 

Agreement WY-121

Memorandum of Agreement between the BLM and the National Park Service, 

addresses management of the Oregon National Historic Trails.

Memorandum of 

Agreement WY-122

Memorandum of Agreement among the BLM and the USFS, Wyoming 

Department of Public Lands, Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, Wyoming 

Recreation Commission, Wyoming Department of Agriculture, and the 

Wyoming State Planning Coordinator’s Office, addresses access to public land.

Memorandum of 

Agreement WY-131

Memorandum of Agreement between the BLM and the WGFD, addresses 

overall coordination on land and resource management.

Memorandum of 

Agreement WY-19

Memorandum of Agreement between the BLM and the Wyoming Governor, 

addresses overall cooperation in public and state land management efforts.

Memorandum of 

Agreement WY-20

Memorandum of Agreement between the BLM and the Wyoming Game and 

Fish Commission, addresses a myriad of land and resource management issues, 

including classifications, land acquisition and disposal, and access.

Memorandum of 

Agreement WY-21

Memorandum of Agreement between the BLM and Region II and Region IV 

of the USFS, addresses overall coordination on a myriad of land and resource 

management issues.

Memorandum of 

Agreement WY-63

Memorandum of Agreement among the BLM, the USFS, Wyoming Department 

of Public Lands and the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, addresses 

public land access and management of access problems.

Memorandum of

Agreement WY-65

Memorandum of Agreement between the BLM and the ASCS, addresses 

overall coordination on a myriad of land and resource management issues.
346 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix E Laws, Regulations, Policies, and 

Guidance

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive 

Management Plan September 2015

Memoranda and 

Agreements Description Year

Memorandum of 

Agreement WY-7 

Memorandum of Agreement between the BLM and the WyomingRecreation 

Commission; addresses land classifications and withdrawals to protectpublic 

lands generally, and specifically to protect historic trails.

Memorandum of 

Agreement WY-77

Memorandum of Agreement among the BLM, the ASCS, USFS, AES, and 

Wyoming State Conservation Commission, addresses overall coordination on 

conservation planning projects.

Memorandum 

of Agreement

WY930-91-06-38

Memorandum of Agreement between the BLM and the Wyoming Board of 

Land Commissioners, addresses exchange pooling.

Memorandum 

of Agreement

WY930-91-06-39

Memorandum of Agreement between the BLM and the Wyoming Board 

of Land Commissioners, addresses exchange of state land in holdings in 

wilderness areas.

Memorandum of 

Agreement, between 

the Wyoming DEQ 

and the State of 

Wyoming Oil and 

Gas Conservation 

Commission

Wyoming DEQ delegated permitting of road applications for oilfield wastes 

when the wastes are to be applied on the lease, unit, or communitized area. 

Wyoming DEQ still has the jurisdiction for permitting road application of oil 

field wastes outside of the lease, unit, or communitized area.

1999

Memorandum of 

Understanding 

between BLM 

and State of 

Wyoming Oil and 

Gas Conservation 

Commission

Outlines the handling of Notices of Intent (NOIs) to conduct geophysical 

exploration and sharing of information and compliance inspections. The State 

of Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has jurisdiction over 

injection wells and spacing.

Memorandum of 

Understanding 

between the BLM 

and the Department 

of Agriculture 

(60F26045-48)

Predator control protocols were formalized in this Interagency Memorandum 

of Understanding.

1995

Memorandum of 

Understanding BLM/ 

APHIS-Wildlife 

Services (ADC)

Detailing cooperative efforts between the two groups on suppression 

of grasshoppers and Mormon crickets on BLM lands (Document

#03-8100-0870-MU, February 27, 2003), and local National Resource 

Conservation Service (NRCS).

2003

Memorandum of 

Understanding No. 

WY 19

Between the BLM and the Wyoming DEQ-Land Quality Division (LQD) and 

addresses Management Of Surface Mining and Exploration for Locatable 

Minerals On Public Lands. It was signed November 11, 2003. This is a 

Supplemental Memorandum to the General Statewide Memorandum of 

Understanding (Memorandum of Understanding) dated October, 1975, between 

the Governor of Wyoming and the United States, by and through the State 

Director, BLM, United States DOI.

2003

Memorandum of 

Understanding No. 

WY-920-1301

Between the BLM and the Wyoming DEQ-LQD for Management of Surface 

Mining and Exploration for Mineral Materials (Salable Minerals) on Public 

Lands, signed on September 11, 2013. This is a Supplemental Memorandum 

to the General Statewide Memorandum of Understanding (Memorandum of 

Understanding) dated October, 1975, between the Governor of Wyoming and 

the United States, by and through the State Director, BLM, United States DOI.

2013

Memorandum of 

Understanding 

WY920-02-09-108

Between the BLM, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and 

the Wyoming Department of Transportation that defines each agency’s 

responsibilities in regard to processing federal-aid highway appropriations.

2002
Worland Approved RMP 347

Appendix E Laws, Regulations, Policies,

and Guidance 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive

September 2015 Management Plan

Memoranda and 

Agreements Description Year

Memorandum of 

Understanding 

WY920-08-07-192

Memorandum of Understanding WY920-08-07-192 between BLM, the FHWA, 

and the Wyoming Department of Transportation, addresses each agency’s 

responsibilities in regard to processing federal-aid highway appropriations. To 

implement Sections 107(d) and 317 of the federal Aid Highway Act (23 U.S.C. 

107(d) and 317), as amended, the agencies operate under this Memorandum

of Understanding (updated in August 2007). All appropriations under the 

Federal Aid Highway Act are required to be consistent with the referenced 

Memorandum of Understanding.

2007

National 

Memorandum of 

Understanding 

between the BLM 

and the Department 

of Defense

This Memorandum of Understanding outlines procedures for processing NOIs 

to conduct geophysical operations when Air Force, Army, and Navy lands 

are involved. The Department of Defense will be the lead agency when their 

lands are involved in an NOI.

Nowater Offhighway Vehicle 

(OHV) Trail System

BLM, Wyoming State Trails Program, Worland chamber of Commerce, Ten 

Sleep Chamber of Commerce.

Programmatic 

Agreement Among 

BLM, the Advisory 

Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the 

National Conference 

of SHPOs

Regarding the Manner in which BLM will meet its Responsibilities Under the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

2012

Public Access Area 

Agreements Between 

BLM and WGFD

Public access area agreements to numerous BLM parcels on South Fork, 

Shoshone, North Fork Shoshone, Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River, and 

Luce and Hogan Reservoirs.

Renner, Carter Billy 

Miles Tensleep 

Public Access Area

BLM, WGFD – Public Access.

State Protocol 

Agreement Between 

the Wyoming BLM 

State Director and the 

Wyoming SHPO

Programmatic agreement among the BLM Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the national conference of SHPO regarding the manner in 

which BLM will meet its responsibilities under the NHPA.

2014

Western Association 

of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies (WAFWA)/ 

USFS/BLM/USFWS

Memorandum of 

Understanding 

(08-31-2000)

Involving the management of Greater Sage-Grouse and their habitat. 2000

Wyoming DEQ There are currently no agreements between BLM and the State of Wyoming 

DEQ-LQD regarding exploration for or development of non-energy leasable 

minerals. Wyoming DEQ-LQD processes applications for these minerals 

under their “Non-Coal” rules and regulations. It is possible that the same 

Memorandum of Understanding between BLM and Wyoming DEQ-LQD for 

locatable minerals would have some valuable application should these two 

agencies need to work together to process applications related to non-energy 

leasable minerals.

Yellowstone River 

Compact

Between the states of Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota was agreed upon 

to create an equitable division and apportionment of such waters; thiscompact 

ultimately controls the future and current uses of water resources in the basin.

1950
This page intentionally 

left blank
Worland Approved RMP 349

Appendix F. Wyoming Bureau of Land 

Management Mitigation Guidelines for 

Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities

F.1. Introduction

Wyoming Mitigation Guidelines are a compilation of practices employed by Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) to mitigate impacts from surface disturbance. They apply to activities such 

as, but not limited to, road or pipeline construction, range improvements, and permitted recreation 

activities. The guidelines are designed to protect resources such as soils and vegetation, wildlife 

habitat, and cultural or historic properties. The guidelines are presented as an appendix of this 

Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) for easy reference as they apply to many resources 

and derive from many laws. All BLM RMPs have included these guidelines as appendices. 

The guidelines are not land use decisions; rather they are examples of mitigation measures that 

could be applied, as appropriate, based on site-specific National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) analysis for individual proposals. Comment on the use and application of specific 

mitigation measures can be made during the NEPA process for individual proposals. Because 

mitigation measures change or are modified, based on new information, the guidelines are updated 

periodically for all field offices in Wyoming. 

These guidelines are primarily for the purpose of attaining statewide consistency in how 

requirements are determined for avoiding and mitigating environmental impacts and resource and 

land use conflicts. Consistency in this sense does not mean that identical requirements would 

be applied for all similar types of land use activities that may cause similar types of impacts. 

Nor does it mean that the requirements or guidelines for a single land use activity would be 

identical in all areas.

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the RMP does not decide or dictate the exact 

wording or inclusion of these guidelines. Rather, the guidelines are used in the RMP EIS process 

as a tool to help develop the RMP alternatives and to provide a baseline for comparative impact 

analysis in arriving at RMP decisions. These guidelines will be used in the same manner in 

analyzing activity plans and other site-specific proposals. These guidelines and their wording are 

matters of policy. As such, specific wording is subject to change primarily through administrative 

review, not through the RMP EIS process. Any further changes that may be made in the 

continuing refinement of these guidelines and any development of program-specific standard 

stipulations will be handled in another forum, including appropriate public involvement and input. 

F.2. Purpose

The purpose of the “Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines” is to inform a potential lessee, 

permittee, or operator of the requirements that must be met when using BLM-administered public 

lands. These guidelines have been written in a format that will allow for the addition of specific 

or specialized mitigation following the submission of a detailed plan of development or other 

project proposal, and an environmental analysis.

September 2015

Appendix F Wyoming Bureau of Land Management

Mitigation Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing

and Disruptive Activities

Introduction
350 Worland Approved RMP

Those resource activities or programs currently without a standardized set of permit or operation 

stipulations can use the mitigation guidelines as stipulations or as conditions of approval, or as a 

baseline for developing specific stipulations for a given activity or program.

Because use of the mitigation guidelines was integrated into the RMP EIS process and will be 

integrated into the site-specific environmental analysis process, the application of stipulations or 

mitigation requirements derived through the guidelines will facilitate consistency with planning 

decisions at plan implementation.

F.3. Mitigation Guidelines

F.3.1. Surface Disturbance Mitigation Guideline

Surface disturbance will be controlled or prohibited in the following areas or conditions. For 

federal oil and gas lease operations, under 43 CFR 3101.1-2 and the terms of the lease (BLM 

Form 3100-11), the authorized officer may require reasonable measures to minimize adverse 

impacts to other resource values, land uses, and users not addressed in lease stipulations at the 

time operations are proposed. Such reasonable measures may include, but are not limited to, 

modification of siting or design of facilities, timing of operations, and specification of interim and 

final reclamation measures. At a minimum, measures shall be deemed consistent with lease rights 

granted provided they do not: require relocation of proposed operations by more than 200 meters; 

require that operations be sited off the leasehold; or prohibit new surface-disturbing operations for 

a period in excess of 60 days in any lease year.

● Slopes in excess of 25 percent.

● Within important scenic areas (Class I and II Visual Resource Management Areas).

● Within 500 feet of surface water and/or riparian areas.

● Construction with frozen material or during periods when the soil material is saturated or 

when watershed damage is likely to occur.

● Within 500 feet of Interstate highways and 200 feet of other existing rights-of-way (i.e., U.S. 

and State highways, roads, railroads, pipelines, power lines).

● Within 1⁄4-mile of occupied dwellings.

Guidance

The intent of the surface disturbance mitigation guideline is to inform interested parties 

(potential lessees, permittees, or operators) that when one or more of the above conditions exist, 

surface-disturbing activities will be prohibited unless or until a permittee or the designated 

representative and the surface management agency arrive at an acceptable plan for mitigation of 

anticipated impacts. This negotiation will occur prior to development.

Specific criteria (e.g., 500 feet from water) have been established based upon the best information 

available. However, geographical areas and time periods must be delineated at the field level.

F.3.2. Wildlife Mitigation Guideline

1. To protect important big game winter habitat, activities or surface use will not be allowed 

from November 15 to April 30 within certain areas encompassed by the authorization. 

Appendix F Wyoming Bureau of Land Management 

Mitigation Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and 

Disruptive Activities

Mitigation Guidelines September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 351

Application of this limitation to operation and maintenance of a developed project must be based 

on environmental analysis of the operational or production aspects. 

Exception, waiver, or modification of this limitation in any year may be approved in writing, 

including documented supporting analysis, by the authorized officer. 

1. To protect important raptor and/or sage and sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat, activities or 

surface use will not be allowed from February 1 to July 31 within certain areas encompassed 

by the authorization. The same criteria apply to defined raptor and game bird winter 

concentration areas from November 15 to April 30. 

Application of this limitation to operation and maintenance of a developed project must be based 

on environmental analysis of the operational or production aspects. 

Exception, waiver, or modification of this limitation in any year may be approved in writing, 

including documented supporting analysis, by the authorized officer. 

1. No activities or surface use will be allowed on that portion of the authorization area identified 

within (legal description) for the purpose of protecting (e.g., sage/sharp-tailed grouse 

breeding grounds, and/or other species/activities) habitat.

Exception, waiver, or modification of this limitation in any year may be approved in writing, 

including documented supporting analysis, by the authorized officer. 

1. Portions of the authorized use area legally described as (legal description), are known or 

suspected to be essential habitat for (name) which is a threatened or endangered species. 

Prior to conducting any onsite activities, the lessee/permittee will be required to conduct 

inventories or studies in accordance with BLM and United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

guidelines to verify the presence or absence of this species. In the event that (name) 

occurrence is identified, the lessee/permittee will be required to modify operational plans 

to include the protection requirements of this species and its habitat (e.g., seasonal use 

restrictions, occupancy limitations, facility design modifications).

Guidance

The Wildlife Mitigation Guideline is intended to provide two basic types of protection: seasonal 

restriction and prohibition of activities or surface use (2c). Item 2d is specific to situations 

involving threatened or endangered species. Legal descriptions will ultimately be required and 

should be measurable and legally definable. There are no minimum subdivision requirements 

at this time. The area delineated can and should be defined as necessary, based upon current 

biological data, prior to the time of processing an application and issuing the use authorization. 

The legal description must eventually become a part of the condition for approval of the permit, 

plan of development, and/or other use authorization. 

The seasonal restriction section identifies three example groups of species and delineates three 

similar timeframe restrictions. The big game species including elk, moose, deer, pronghorn, and 

bighorn sheep, all require protection of crucial winter range between November 15 and April 30. 

Elk and bighorn sheep also require protection from disturbance from May 1 to June 30, when 

they typically occupy distinct calving and lambing areas. Raptors include eagles, accipiters, 

falcons (peregrine, prairie, and merlin), buteos (ferruginous and Swainson’s hawks), osprey, and 

burrowing owls. Refer to Appendix N, Seasonal Raptor Stipulations for All Surface-Disturbing

Appendix F Wyoming Bureau of Land Management

Mitigation Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing

and Disruptive Activities

September 2015 Wildlife Mitigation Guideline
352 Worland Approved RMP

and Disruptive Activities (p. 561) for additional information on raptor nesting and winter 

concentration periods. 

Item 2c, the prohibition of activity or surface use, is intended for protection of specific wildlife 

habitat areas or values within the use area that cannot be protected by using seasonal restrictions. 

These areas or values must be factors that limit life-cycle activities (e.g., Greater Sage-Grouse 

strutting grounds, known threatened and endangered species habitat).

Exception, waiver, or modification of requirements developed from this guideline must be based 

upon environmental analysis of proposals (e.g., activity plans, plans of development, plans of 

operation, applications for permit to drill) and, if necessary, must allow for other mitigation to 

be applied on a site-specific basis.

F.3.3. Cultural Resource Mitigation Guideline

When a proposed land use has potential for affecting the characteristics which qualify a cultural 

property for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), mitigation will be considered. In 

accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, procedures specified in 

36 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 800 will be used in consultation with the Wyoming State 

Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in arriving at 

determinations regarding the need and type of mitigation to be required. 

Guidance

The preferred strategy for treating potential adverse effects on cultural properties is “avoidance.” 

If avoidance involves project relocation, the new project area may also require cultural resources 

survey. If avoidance is imprudent or unfeasible, appropriate mitigation may include excavation 

(data recovery), stabilization, monitoring, protection barriers and signs, or other physical and 

administrative measures.

Reports documenting results of cultural resources survey, evaluation, and the establishment 

of mitigation alternatives (if necessary) shall be written according to standards contained in 

BLM Manuals, the cultural resource permit stipulations, and in other policy issued by the BLM. 

These reports must provide sufficient information for Section 106 consultation. Reports shall be 

reviewed for adequacy by the appropriate BLM cultural resource specialist. If cultural properties 

on, or eligible for, the NRHP are located within these areas of potential impact and cannot be 

avoided, the authorized officer shall begin the Section 106 consultation process in accordance 

with the procedures contained in 36 CFR 800. 

Mitigation measures shall be implemented according to the mitigation plan approved by the 

BLM authorized officer. Such plans are usually prepared by the land use applicant according to 

BLM specifications. Mitigation plans will be reviewed as part of Section 106 consultation for 

NRHP eligible or listed properties. The extent and nature of recommended mitigation shall be 

commensurate with the significance of the cultural resource involved and the anticipated extent of 

damage. Reasonable costs for mitigation will be borne by the land use applicant. Mitigation must 

be cost effective and realistic. It must consider project requirements and limitations, input from 

concerned parties, and be BLM approved or BLM formulated. 

Mitigation of paleontological and natural history sites will be treated on a case-by-case basis. 

Factors such as site significance, economics, safety, and project urgency must be taken into 

account when making a decision to mitigate. Authority to protect (through mitigation) such

Appendix F Wyoming Bureau of Land Management 

Mitigation Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and 

Disruptive Activities

Cultural Resource Mitigation Guideline September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 353

values is provided for in Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Section 102(a)(8). When 

avoidance is not possible, appropriate mitigation may include excavation (data recovery), 

stabilization, monitoring, protection barriers and signs, or other physical and administrative 

protection measures.

F.3.4. Special Resource Mitigation Guideline

To protect (resource value), activities or surface use will not be allowed (i.e., within a specific 

distance of the resource value or between date to date) in (legal description). 

Application of this limitation to operation and maintenance of a developed project must be based 

on environmental analysis of the operational or production aspects. 

Exception, waiver, or modification of this limitation in any year may be approved in writing, 

including documented supporting analysis, by the authorized officer. 

Example Resource Categories (Select or identify category and specific resource value):

● Recreation areas

● Special natural history or paleontological features

● Special management areas

● Sections of major rivers

● Prior existing rights-of-way

● Occupied dwellings

● Other (specify)

Guidance

The Special Resource Mitigation Guideline is intended for use only in site-specific situations 

where one of the first three general mitigation guidelines will not adequately address the concern.

The resource value, location, and specific restrictions must be clearly identified. A detailed 

plan addressing specific mitigation and special restrictions will be required prior to disturbance 

or development and will become a condition for approval of the permit, plan of development, 

or other use authorization. 

Exception, waiver, or modification of requirements developed from this guideline must be based 

upon environmental analysis of proposals (e.g., activity plans, plans of development, plans of 

operation, applications for permit to drill) and, if necessary, must allow for other mitigation to 

be applied on a site-specific basis.

F.3.5. No Surface Occupancy Guideline

No Surface Occupancy (NSO) will be allowed on the following described lands (legal description) 

because of (resource value).

Example Resource Categories (Select or identify category and specific resource value):

● Recreation areas (e.g., campgrounds, historic trails, national monuments) 

● Major reservoirs/dams

● Special management area (e.g., known threatened or endangered species habitat, areas suitable 

for consideration for wild and scenic rivers designation) 

● Other (specify)

September 2015

Appendix F Wyoming Bureau of Land Management 

Mitigation Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing

and Disruptive Activities 

Special Resource Mitigation Guideline
354 Worland Approved RMP

Guidance

The No Surface Occupancy Mitigation Guideline is intended for use only when other mitigation 

is determined insufficient to adequately protect the public interest and is the only alternative to 

“no development” or “no leasing.” The legal description and resource value of concern must be 

identified and be tied to an NSO land use planning decision. 

Waiver of, or exception(s) to, the NSO requirement will be subject to the same test used to 

initially justify its imposition. If, upon evaluation of a site-specific proposal, it is found that less 

restrictive mitigation would adequately protect the public interest or value of concern, then 

a waiver or exception to the NSO requirement is possible. The record must show that because 

conditions or uses have changed, less restrictive requirements will protect the public interest. An 

environmental analysis must be conducted and documented (e.g., environmental assessment, 

environmental impact statement, etc., as necessary) in order to provide the basis for a waiver 

or exception to an NSO planning decision. Modification of the NSO requirement will pertain 

only to refinement or correction of the location(s) to which it applied. If the waiver, exception, 

or modification is found to be consistent with the intent of the planning decision, it may be 

granted. If found inconsistent with the intent of the planning decision, a plan amendment would 

be required before the waiver, exception, or modification could be granted. 

When considering the “no development” or “no leasing” option, a rigorous test must be met and 

fully documented in the record. This test must be based upon stringent standards described in 

the land use planning document. Since rejection of all development rights is more severe than 

the most restrictive mitigation requirement, the record must show that consideration was given 

to development subject to reasonable mitigation, including “no surface occupancy.” The record 

must also show that other mitigation was determined to be insufficient to adequately protect the 

public interest. A “no development” or “no leasing” decision should not be made solely because 

it appears that conventional methods of development would be unfeasible, especially where an 

NSO restriction may be acceptable to a potential permittee. In such cases, the potential permittee 

should have the opportunity to decide whether or not to go ahead with the proposal (or accept the 

use authorization), recognizing that an NSO restriction is involved. 

F.3.6. Regional Mitigation Guideline

For information on Regional Mitigation, please refer to Section 2.3.6 of the Bighorn Basin 

Proposed RMP and Final EIS. 

Appendix F Wyoming Bureau of Land Management 

Mitigation Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and 

Disruptive Activities

Regional Mitigation Guideline September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 355

Appendix G. Federal Oil and Gas 

Operations on Split-Estate Lands 

G.1. Purpose

The purpose of this appendix is to summarize the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) 

procedures for considering proposals to conduct exploration and production operations on splitestate federal oil and gas leases. This appendix is provided for information purposes only, 

and is not necessarily a complete statement of rights, obligations, or processes. This appendix is 

not a part of the BLM’s land use plan decision for the Resource Management Plan (RMP). Any 

conflict with any statute or regulation is unintentional. In the event of a conflict, the statute or 

regulation controls. Federal oil and gas lessees and operators, and private surface owners, are 

advised to confer with the BLM at the time an action is proposed for BLM’s consideration, in order 

to obtain information about the current regulations and policies that may apply to the proposal. 

Nothing in this appendix affects the authority of any tribe or of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 

any way. This RMP applies to federal lands as defined by Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act, and does not apply to lands held in trust for any Tribe or for any individual Indian or Indians. 

G.2. Definitions

Casual use (operations): “Casual use means activities involving practices that do not ordinarily 

lead to any appreciable disturbance or damage to lands, resources, or improvements. This term 

does not apply to private surface. Casual use includes surveying activities.” (Onshore Oil and 

Gas Order No. 1, part II). 

Lease: “means any contract, profit share arrangement, joint venture or other agreement issued 

or approved by the United States under a mineral leasing law that authorizes exploration for, 

extraction of or removal of oil or gas.” (Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, part II). 

Lease facility or production facility: “Production facilities means a lessee's or lease operator's 

pipes and equipment used on the leasehold to aid in extracting, processing, and storing oil 

and gas...” (64 FR 32140). See also BLM Manual Section 2880 (“Mineral Leasing Act 

Rights-of-Way”) at Page 9. 

Lease site: “means any lands, including the surface of a severed mineral estate, on which 

exploration for, or extraction and removal of, oil or gas is authorized under a lease.” (43 CFR 

3160.0-5).

Lessee: “means any person holding record title or owning operating rights in a lease issued or 

approved by the United States.” (43 CFR 3160.0-5).

Operator: “means any person or entity including but not limited to the lessee or operating rights 

owner, who has stated in writing to the authorized officer that it is responsible under the terms and 

conditions of the lease for the operations conducted on the leased lands or a portion thereof.” 

(43 CFR 3160.0-5).

September 2015

Appendix G Federal Oil and Gas Operations

on Split-Estate Lands

Purpose
356 Worland Approved RMP

Public lands: “means any land and interest in land owned by the United States within the 

several States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land 

Management...” (Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976, Sec. 103(e)). 

Private surface owner: “Private Surface Owner means a non-Federal or non-state owner of the 

surface estate and includes any Indian owner of surface estate not held in trust by the United 

States.” (Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, part II). 

Split-estate: “Split-estate means lands where the surface is owned by an entity or person other 

than the owner of the Federal or Indian oil and gas.” (Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, part II). 

“When tribal lands are held in trust or are subject to Federal restrictions against alienation the 

BIA is the Surface Managing Agency, but if lands are held in unrestricted fee, those lands are 

treated the same as private surface.” (Preamble to Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 revisions, 72 

FR 10322-10323, March 7, 2007). 

Surface Managing Agency: “Surface Managing Agency means any Federal or state agency 

having jurisdiction over the surface overlying Federal or Indian oil and gas.” (Onshore Oil and 

Gas Order No. 1, part II). 

G.3. General

In considering and authorizing exploration and development of split-estate federal oil and gas 

leases, the BLM prefers that the operator and split-estate surface owner reach a Surface Access 

Agreement for proposed oil and gas operations. The BLM coordinates with both the operator and 

surface owner, in accordance with the requirements of Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, and 

generally provides the surface owner’s lands the same level of resource (soil, water, vegetation, 

air, visual, cultural, etc.) protection as would be required on BLM-administered public lands. 

“The BLM will offer the surface owner the same level of surface protection that the BLM 

provides on federal surface. The BLM will not apply standards or conditions that exceed those 

that would normally be applied to federal surface, even when requested by the surface owner.” 

(The Gold Book, page 12). 

Federal mineral lessees may enter onto a privately-owned surface to the extent necessary to 

explore and produce the federal minerals in compliance with the relevant statutes and BLM 

regulations and land use designations. The BLM does not have the authority to regulate a surface 

owner’s use of the surface estate, but does have the authority to regulate the activities of federal 

mineral lessees and mining claimants. The BLM adds lease stipulations to split-estate federal oil 

and gas leases, in order to ensure that leasing decisions conform to the approved RMP for the area.

G.4. Operations

G.4.1. Geophysical

The BLM’s authority to permit geophysical operations is described under 43 CFR §3150.0-1: 

Geophysical exploration on public lands, the surface of which is administered by the Bureau, 

requires Bureau approval. The procedures in this part also apply to geophysical exploration 

Appendix G Federal Oil and Gas Operations on 

Split-Estate Lands

General September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 357

conducted under the rights granted by any federal oil and gas lease unless the surface is 

administered by the U.S. Forest Service. However, a lessee may elect to conduct exploration 

operations outside the rights granted by the lease, in which case authorization from the surface 

managing agency or surface owner may be required... The procedures of this part do not apply 

to... operations conducted on private surface overlying public lands unless such operations are 

conducted by a lessee under the rights granted by the federal oil and gas lease... 

As BLM Handbook H-3150-11 at pages 1–2 explains: 

In those situations where federal minerals are underlying private surface and the private surface 

owner’s consent is obtained, the BLM is not to become involved. However, when landowner 

consent for access to the surface cannot be obtained for geophysical exploration operations on 

a federal lease by the lease operator, the geophysical operation is to be authorized using the 

Sundry Notice process...2

When the geophysical exploration operator is the federal lessee or designated operator of 

the lessee, it is to file a Sundry Notice... with the BLM and provide notification to the surface 

owner by certified mail that it intends to enter onto the lands and conduct lease operations. The 

lessee/operator must then submit proof to the BLM authorized officer that the surface owner has 

been notified. The lessee or operator must also submit proof to the BLM authorized officer that 

it has a current and adequate bond payable to the United States for use by the surface owner 

for damages caused during exploration operations. The authorized officer must give the surface 

owner 30 days to comment on the proposed action before approving the Sundry Notice.

When a surface access agreement is reached to conduct geophysical operations on split-estate 

lands with leased or unleased federal oil and gas, the BLM does not become involved. The BLM 

will not accept a Notice of Intent to Conduct Geophysical Operations (NOI), BLM Form 3150-4 or 

bond to permit entry to split-estate lands with unleased federal oil and gas, since the BLM has not 

issued an oil and gas lease to allow for operations under 43 CFR Part 3160 (see 43 CFR 3150.0-1).

In order to conduct geophysical operations on split-estate lands where a federal oil and gas lease 

has been issued and where an agreement with the surface owner has not been reached, the lessee 

or the operator must first obtain BLM authorization through an NOI that proposes entry to those 

lands in order to conduct geophysical operations. The lessee or designated operator must provide 

to the BLM a certification (see Attachment 1) that a good-faith effort was made to: (a) notify the 

landowner prior to entry; (b) obtain a Surface Access Agreement; and (c) deliver a copy of the 

proposed NOI to the surface owner.3 The NOI must also identify the surface owner and include 

the owner’s name, address, and telephone number, if known. A good and sufficient bond to secure 

payment of applicable damages for the use and benefit of the surface owner must be provided to 

the BLM on BLM Form 3160-19. The lessee or designated operator must also submit to the BLM 

evidence of service of a copy of the bond upon the surface owner. Prior to authorizing the NOI 

proposing entry to the lands for which the bond has been submitted, the BLM notifies the surface 

owner and provides a 30-day period during which the surface owner may protest the sufficiency 

1Onshore Oil and Gas Geophysical Exploration Surface Management Requirements. January 9, 2007.

2In BLM Washington Office Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2009-121, “Approval of Notice of Intent to Conduct 

Geophysical Exploration to Federal Oil and Gas Lessee on Split Estate”, dated May 8, 2009, the BLM recognized that 

the Sundry Notice form (BLM Form 3160-5) is an imperfect form to use for permitting of geophysical operations. This 

policy clarified that the BLM will “no longer require the lessee or its operator to file a Sundry Notice” for the purpose of 

proposing entry to federal leases where a surface owner denies access to the lessee or its operator. In its place the BLM 

would use the NOI form (BLM Form 3150-4).

3See Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, Part VI.

September 2015

Appendix G Federal Oil and Gas Operations

on Split-Estate Lands

Geophysical
358 Worland Approved RMP

4See 43 CFR §3165.3(b). See, e.g., William P. Maycock, 176 IBLA 206 (2008).

Appendix G Federal Oil and Gas Operations on 

Split-Estate Lands

Notice of Staking/Application for Permit to Drill September 2015

of the bond. If the sufficiency of the bond is protested, the BLM reviews the bond amount and 

determines if it is adequate. That decision by the BLM is subject to State Director Review upon a 

request by any adversely affected party and the State Director’s decision is subject to appeal to 

the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA).4

G.4.2. Notice of Staking/Application for Permit to Drill

G.4.2.1. Surveying and Staking Activities

The lessee or operator is encouraged to contact the surface owner of split-estate lands early in 

the process of planning for exploration and development of a federal lease. This facilitates early 

discussion about the goals and objectives of both the surface owner and operator. Communication 

between the lessee or operator and surface owner can reduce potential conflicts, thereby reducing 

misunderstandings and permit processing times.

For surveying and staking activities, “[t]he operator is responsible for making access arrangements 

with the appropriate Surface Managing Agency (other than the BLM and the FS) or private 

surface owner.” (Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, part III.D.2.a).

“No entry on split-estate lands for surveying and staking should occur without the operator first 

making a good faith effort to notify the surface owner. Also, operators are encouraged to notify 

the BLM or the Forest Service, as appropriate, before entering private lands to stake for federal 

mineral estate locations.” (Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, part III.D.2.b). 

Aside from surveying and staking the proposed well location, road, pipeline, and/or other lease 

facilities, the operator may also be required to conduct resource condition surveys of the leased 

lands. 

“As provided in the oil and gas lease, the BLM may request that the applicant conduct surveys or 

otherwise provide information needed for the BLM’s National Historic Preservation Act 

consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer or Indian tribe or its Endangered Species 

Act consultation with the relevant fisheries agency. The federal mineral lessee has the right to 

enter the property for this purpose, since it is a necessary prerequisite to development of the 

dominant mineral estate. Nevertheless, the lessee or operator should seek to reach agreement 

with the surface owner about the time and method by which any survey would be conducted.” 

(Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, part VI).

G.4.2.2. Onsite Inspection(s)

On split-estate lands, the onsite inspection provides the opportunity for the BLM, operator, and 

surface owner to evaluate and discuss the proposed well location or lease facility in the field. 

“Within 10 days of receiving the application, the BLM, in coordination with the operator and 

Surface Managing Agency, including the private surface owner in the case of split-estate minerals, 

will schedule a date for the onsite inspection (unless the onsite inspection has already been 

conducted as part of a Notice of Staking).” (Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, part III.E.2.a). 
Worland Approved RMP 359

“On non-NFS lands, the BLM will invite the Surface Managing Agency and private surface 

owner, if applicable, to participate in the onsite inspection. If the surface is privately owned, the 

operator must furnish to the BLM the name, address, and telephone number of the surface owner 

if known.” (Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, part III.C). 

At the onsite inspection, the BLM will consider applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

that would avoid or mitigate environmental impacts to natural resources. The onsite inspection 

provides the surface owner with the opportunity to review the proposed well location and/or lease 

facilities; provide information to the BLM and operator about resources, improvements, and land 

uses; and express preferences for BMPs to be used for lease operations. 

“All parties who attend the onsite inspection will jointly develop a list of resource concerns that 

the operator must address in the Application for Permit to Drill (APD). The operator will be 

provided a list of these concerns either during the onsite inspection or within 7 days of the onsite 

inspection. Surface owner concerns will be considered to the extent practical within the law.” 

(Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, part III.C). 

“The BLM will invite the surface owner to the onsite inspection to assure that their concerns are 

considered.” (Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, part VI). 

G.4.2.3. Required Components of a Complete Application for Permit to Drill 

for Split-estate Operations

G.4.2.3.1. Description of Surface Ownership

A description of the surface ownership (with name, address, and telephone number, if known) 

along with a certification must be included in the APD submitted by the operator to the BLM. 

“The operator must indicate (in a narrative) the surface ownership at the well location, and of all 

lands crossed by roads that the operator plans to construct or upgrade, including, if known, the 

name of the agency or owner, phone number, and address. The operator must certify that they 

have provided a copy of the Surface Use Plan of Operations required in this section to the private 

surface owner of the well site location, if applicable, or that they made a good faith effort if unable 

to provide the document to the surface owner.” (Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, part III.D.4.k). 

G.4.2.3.2. Surface Access Agreement or Waiver

For operations on leased split-estate lands, the operator must undertake a good faith effort to 

reach a Surface Access Agreement.

“[I]n the case of actual oil and gas operations, the operator must make a good faith effort to notify 

the private surface owner before entry and make a good faith effort to obtain a Surface Access 

Agreement from the surface owner... The Surface Access Agreement may include terms or 

conditions of use, be a waiver, or an agreement for compensation. The operator must certify to 

the BLM that: (1) It made a good faith effort to notify the surface owner before entry; and (2) 

That an agreement with the surface owner has been reached or that a good faith effort to reach an 

agreement failed.” (Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, part VI).

“The operator must make a good faith effort to provide a copy of their Surface Use Plan of 

Operations to the surface owner.” (Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, part VI). The operator must 

Appendix G Federal Oil and Gas Operations

on Split-Estate Lands

September 2015 Notice of Staking/Application for Permit to Drill
360 Worland Approved RMP

5See 43 CFR §3165.3(b). See, e.g., William P. Maycock, 176 IBLA 206 (2008).

Appendix G Federal Oil and Gas Operations on 

Split-Estate Lands

Notice of Staking/Application for Permit to Drill September 2015

also provide a copy of any revisions to the SUPO to the surface owner. If required under Onshore 

Oil and Gas Order No. 6 (“Hydrogen Sulfide Operations”), the BLM requires the operator to 

provide a copy of the Public Protection Plan to the surface owner. 

“The surface use agreement between the surface owner and the operator is confidential. However, 

the APD Surface Use Plan of Operations must contain sufficient detail about any aspects of the 

agreement necessary for NEPA documentation and to determine that the operations will be in 

compliance with laws, regulations, Onshore Orders, and agency policies.” (The Gold Book, 

page 12). 

“If the BLM’s requirements conflict with provisions in the Surface [Access] Agreement, the 

operator or surface owner should disclose that conflict at the onsite or to the BLM in writing, and 

the BLM should consider those conflicts in making its final decision.” (BLM’s Split Estate Report 

to Congress at page 15). Thus, to the extent terms of the agreement may conflict with Conditions 

of Approval, or COAs, to the APD, the BLM should be made aware of those terms, so that they 

can be considered in the BLM’s final decision. 

“The BLM does not review the Surface Use Agreement and does not enforce portions of the 

Surface Use Agreement that are not contained within the approved APD.” (BLM’s Split Estate 

Report to Congress at page 17). 

G.4.2.3.3. Bonding In Lieu of a Surface Access Agreement or Waiver

It is the preference of the BLM that the operator and surface owner reach a Surface Access 

Agreement. However, in those cases where an agreement is not reached, the BLM follows the 

procedural requirements in the BLM’s regulations and policies. A good and sufficient bond to 

secure payment of applicable damages for the use and benefit of the surface owner must be 

provided to the BLM on BLM Form 3160-19. The lessee or designated operator must also submit 

to the BLM evidence of service of a copy of the bond upon the surface owner. Prior to authorizing 

the APD proposing entry to the lands for which the bond has been submitted, the BLM notifies 

the surface owner and provides a 30-day period during which the surface owner may protest the 

sufficiency of the bond. If the sufficiency of the bond is protested, the BLM reviews the bond 

amount and determine if it is adequate. That decision by the BLM is subject to State Director 

Review upon a request by any adversely affected party and the State Director’s decision is subject 

to appeal to the IBLA.5

“If no agreement was reached with the surface owner, the operator must submit an adequate bond 

(minimum of $1,000) to the BLM for the benefit of the surface owner sufficient to: (1) Pay for 

loss or damages; or (2) As otherwise required by the specific statutory authority under which the 

surface was patented and the terms of the lease. Surface owners have the right to appeal the 

sufficiency of the bond. Before the approval of the APD, the BLM will make a good faith effort 

to contact the surface owner to assure that they understand their rights to appeal.” (Onshore 

Oil and Gas Order No. 1, part VI). 

“The bond amount will be reviewed by the BLM to assure that it is sufficient based on the 

appropriate law.” (Preamble to Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 revisions, 72 FR 10323, March 

7, 2007). 
Worland Approved RMP 361

Appendix G Federal Oil and Gas Operations

on Split-Estate Lands 

September 2015 Sundry Notices

If operations under an approved APD result in loss or damages that are compensable under 

the statutes by which the lands were patented, the surface owner may obtain judgment from a 

court of competent jurisdiction. The BLM will then release from the bond the amount ordered 

by the court to the surface owner.

G.4.2.4. Approval of the Application for Permit to Drill

The BLM considers the views of the surface owner before approving the APD. The BLM must 

prepare an environmental record of review (43 CFR 3162.5-1(a)) to document its evaluation of 

potential resource impacts, including documentation of NEPA compliance. 

“The BLM must comply with NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered 

Species Act, and related Federal statutes when authorizing lease operations on split-estate lands 

where the surface is not federally owned and the oil and gas is federal. For split-estate lands within 

FS administrative boundaries, the BLM has the lead responsibility, unless there is a local BLM/FS 

agreement that gives the FS this responsibility.” (Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, part VI).

“After the APD is approved the operator must make a good faith effort to provide a copy of 

the Conditions of Approval to the surface owner. The APD approval is not contingent upon 

delivery of a copy of the Conditions of Approval to the surface owner.” (Onshore Oil and Gas 

Order No. 1, part VI). 

G.4.3. Sundry Notices

Operations proposed by Sundry Notice that will result in additional surface disturbance or 

re-disturbance of previously reclaimed areas require a Surface Use Plan of Operations.

“Prior to commencing any operation on the leasehold which will result in additional surface 

disturbance, other than those authorized under § 3162.3–1 or § 3162.3–2 of this title, the operator 

shall submit a proposal on Form 3160–5 to the authorized officer for approval. The proposal shall 

include a surface use plan of operations.” (43 CFR 3162.3-3).

“The operator must certify on Form 3160–5 that they have made a good faith effort to provide a 

copy of any proposal involving new surface disturbance to the private surface owner in the case 

of split-estate.” (Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, part VIII.A). 

For review of Final Abandonment Notices (FANs) submitted by an operator on split-estate lands, 

the BLM will consider the views of the surface owner. 

“If applicable, the private surface owner will be notified and their views will be carefully 

considered.” (Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, part XII). 

“In cases where the Surface Managing Agency or private surface owner desires to acquire an oil 

and gas well and convert it to a water supply well or acquire a water supply well that was drilled 

by the operator to support lease operations, the Surface Managing Agency or private surface 

owner must inform the appropriate BLM office of its intent before the approval of the APD in 

the case of a dry hole and no later than the time a Notice of Intent to Abandon is submitted for 

a depleted production well... The Surface Managing Agency or private surface owner must 

reach agreement with the operator as to the satisfactory completion of reclamation operations 

before the BLM will approve any abandonment or reclamation. The BLM approval of the partial 

abandonment under this section, completion of any required reclamation operations, and the 
362 Worland Approved RMP

signed release agreement will relieve the operator of further obligation for the well. If the Surface 

Managing Agency or private surface owner acquires the well for water use purposes, the party 

acquiring the well assumes liability for the well.” (Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, part IX.B). 

“Completion of a well as plugged and abandoned may also include conditioning the well 

as water supply source for lease operations or for use by the surface owner or appropriate

Government Agency, when authorized by the authorized officer. All costs over and above the 

normal plugging and abandonment expense will be paid by the party accepting the water well.” 

(43 CFR 3162.3-4(b)).

G.4.3.1. Emergency Operations

“In the event of an emergency, the operator may take immediate action without prior Surface 

Managing Agency approval to safeguard life or to prevent significant environmental degradation. 

The BLM or the FS must receive notification of the emergency situation and the remedial 

action taken by the operator as soon as possible, but not later than 24 hours after the emergency 

occurred. If the emergency only affected drilling operations and had no surface impacts, only the 

BLM must be notified. If the emergency involved surface resources on other Surface Managing 

Agency lands, the operator should also notify the Surface Managing Agency and private surface 

owner within 24 hours.” (Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, part IV.d).

Bibliography 

BLM. 1994. Wyoming BLM MOU WY920-94-09-79 Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission Memorandum of Understanding. September 13. 

BLM. 1989. Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 1989-201 Legal Responsibilities of 

BLM for Oil and Gas Leasing and Operations on Split Estate Lands. January 4. 

BLM. 2003. Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2003-131 Permitting Oil and 

Gas on Split Estate Lands and Guidance for Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1. 

April 2. Available online: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/

best_management_practices/split_estate.html.

BLM. 2006. Energy Policy Act of 2005 – Section 1835 Split Estate Federal 

Oil and Gas Leasing and Development Practices– A Report to Congress. 

December. Available online: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/

wo/MINERALS REALTY AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/

bmps.Par.65158.File.tmp/1-Split-Estate%20Report%20to%20Congress%202006.doc. 

BLM. 2007a. Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development (“The Gold Book”). Available online: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/

energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/gold_book.html. 

BLM. 2007b. Handbook H-3150-1, Onshore Oil and Gas Geophysical Exploration Surface 

Management Requirements. Available online: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/

regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/blm_handbooks.html. 

Appendix G Federal Oil and Gas Operations on 

Split-Estate Lands

Sundry Notices September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 363

Appendix G Federal Oil and Gas Operations

on Split-Estate Lands 

September 2015 Sundry Notices

BLM. 2007c. Split Estate – Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities. Available online: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/

split_estate.html.

BLM. 2007d. Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2007-165 Split 

Estate Report to Congress – Implementation of Fluid Mineral Leasing 

and Land Use Planning Recommendations. July 26. Available online: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/

national_instruction/2007/im_2007-165.html. 

BLM. 2008. Split Estate – Cultural Resource Requirements on Private Surface – Federal Minerals 

for Oil and Gas Development. Available online: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/

energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/split_estate.html.

BLM. 2010. BLM Form 3160-019, Bond for Surface Owner Protection. Available online: 

http://www.blm.gov/noc/st/en/business/eForms/og.html.
This page intentionally 

left blank
Worland Approved RMP 365

Appendix H. Monitoring and Evaluation 

H.1. Introduction

This appendix provides an overview of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Worland Field 

Office Monitoring and Evaluation protocol. Conditions may change over the life of the land 

use plan and these changes may require different management actions to protect resources and 

minimize resource conflicts. To address the changing conditions and provide management

flexibility that incorporates best management practices (BMP), the BLM reviews effectiveness of 

management actions, assesses the current resource conditions and, if needed, alters management 

actions.

Due to staffing and funding levels, monitoring will be prioritized consistent with the goals and 

objectives of the Resource Management Plan (RMP) in cooperation with local, state, and other 

federal agencies. A system should be established to regularly collect, coordinate and distribute 

monitoring data collected by other federal and state agencies. Changes to monitoring may result 

from developing technologies or a better understanding of information. 

The monitoring framework for Greater Sage-Grouse is provided in Appendix D, Greater

Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Strategy (p. 271). 

H.2. Data Collection

In cooperation with local, state and other federal agencies, the BLM will collect, analyze, and 

report monitoring data that allows for the determination of cause and effect, conditions, trends 

and predictive modeling of land use authorizations. Monitoring methods are implemented to 

collect data that establish current conditions and reveal any change in the indicators. Monitoring 

techniques consider when, where, and frequency. The data collected through monitoring provide 

a variety of information applicable to one or more resource uses. To increase effectiveness, 

efficiency and eliminate duplication, monitoring methods should be designed to address as many 

uses as possible. The BLM will collaborate with cooperating agencies and permittees to assist 

in or perform this data collection.

H.3. Data Analysis

Data will be analyzed to determine the change that has occurred as a result of management 

actions. Data analysis will be conducted on a predetermined schedule that considers the data 

collection frequency for detecting change. Data will also be recorded and organized to facilitate 

analysis to be used in assessing management actions. Analyzed data will be assessed to determine 

whether the resource conditions are meeting the planned goals; whether a change has occurred, 

and if so, identify the cause; and what appropriate action should be taken to achieve the desired 

outcome if the objective is not being met. New technology and management methods will be 

reviewed to determine their applicability in modifying or replacing current management actions. 

The BLM will collaborate with cooperating agencies to assist in or perform this data analysis. 

September 2015

Appendix H Monitoring and Evaluation

Introduction
366 Worland Approved RMP

H.4. Decision

When the assessment shows that the goals are still valid but the outcome is not being 

achieved, the cause of non-achievement will be documented and a change or modification in 

management actions would be warranted to address the causal factors. The assessment will 

develop recommendations to be considered by management for continuation, modification, or 

replacement of current management actions. Because adoption of a new management action 

may require changes in the monitoring plan, the assessment will also evaluate the effectiveness 

of the monitoring and data collection methods and recommend continued use, modification, or 

elimination of those methods. 

H.5. Establishment of Monitoring Protocols

Establishing monitoring protocols will follow BLM program specific policy and, where 

appropriate, the general seven step principles outlined in the Regional Framework for

Water-Resources Monitoring Related to Energy Exploration and Development. Those steps are: 

1. Specify monitoring goals and objectives.

2. Characterize anthropogenic stressors that may affect receptors and parameters ofinterest.

3. Develop regional questions and conceptual models to describe the process and pathways 

anthropogenic stressors may affect receptors.

4. Suggest indicators to measure the effects of anthropogenic stressors, and define existing 

information availability and needs.

5. Estimate the sensitivity of the indicators to detect change, to guide final indicator choice, and 

monitoring design. 

6. Describe a process by which management can identify thresholds of change requiring a 

management response as indicated by causal factors.

7. Identify clear connections between the overall monitoring program and management 

decision process. 

H.6. Resource Monitoring Table

The resource monitoring table (Table H.1, “Resource Monitoring Table” (p. 367)) identifies the 

indicator that will be monitored to detect change in resource conditions, the method or technique 

of monitoring, the locations for monitoring, the unit of measurement for monitoring, the frequency 

for monitoring, and the action triggers that indicate the effectiveness of the management action. 

Footnotes in Table H.1, “Resource Monitoring Table” (p. 367) indicate where monitoring is 

generally conducted by stakeholders or cooperating agencies.

Appendix H Monitoring and Evaluation

Decision September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 367

Appendix H Monitoring and Evaluation

September 2015 Resource Monitoring Table

Table H.1. Resource Monitoring Table 

Resource Record 

Number Indicator Method or Technique Location Unit of Measure Frequency Action Triggers

Air Quality1 M-1 Air quality. Ambient air 

sampling and 

air quality 

modeling.

Established 

Monitoring 

Stations.

Parts per 

million.

Hourly to 

24-hour 

samples in 

accordance 

with 

standards.

Samples 

exceeding 

National 

Ambient 

Air Quality 

Standards.

M-2 Gaseous and 

particulate 

critical air 

pollutants.

Emission 

inventory.

Established 

Monitoring 

Stations.

Pounds per 

hour and tons 

per year.

Annually. Samples 

exceeding 

Ambient 

Air Quality 

Standards 

or levels of 

concern.

Cultural2 M-3 National 

Register 

eligible sites.

Site 

inspection.

Area wide. Disturbance. Annually. Disturbance 

as a result of 

land uses or 

vandalism, 

fire, and 

severe 

weather 

events such 

as flooding 

and erosion.

Fire M-4 Fire fuels. Site 

inspection.

Wildlandurban 

interface and 

industrial 

interface 

areas.

Acres. Annually. Presence of 

fire fuels 

that present 

a risk to 

communities 

and 

industrial 

sites.

M-5 Vegetation 

condition.

Ecological 

site condition 

and trend 

studies.

Vegetation 

types where 

there is a 

history of 

fire in the 

ecosystem.

Representative sample.

Annually. Vegetation 

growth trend 

is moving 

away from 

desired 

conditions 

for the 

vegetation 

type.

M-6 Resource 

and property 

damage.

Fire 

behavior.

Individual 

fire.

Fire 

temperature, 

flame length, 

burn rate, and 

acres burned.

While the fire 

is burning.

Acres burned

and fire 

intensity

that exceed 

prescription.
368 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix H Monitoring and Evaluation 

Resource Monitoring Table September 2015

Resource Record 

Number Indicator Method or Technique Location Unit of 

Measure Frequency Action Triggers

Forestry M-7 Forest 

Health.

Ecological 

site condition 

and trend.

Forested 

lands.

Representative sample 

area.

Every 3 to 5 

years.

Disease, insect infestation, or 

encroachment of undesirable 

plant species 

threatens forest health.

M-8 Timber 

stands.

Timber stand 

examination.

Commercial 

forested 

areas.

Board feet, 

age class, and 

damages.

Every 10 to

20 years.

Basal area 

growth does 

not meet 

timber type 

standards.

Lands and 

Realty

M-9 Realty 

authorization 

compliance.

Site 

compliance 

inspection.

Area wide. Number 

of site

inspections.

Annually. Noncompliance

or non-use.

Livestock 

Grazing

M-10 Vegetation 

condition

BLM

approved 

monitoring 

methods; 

monitoring 

plans are 

included in 

Allotment 

Management 

Plans.

All areas 

being grazed.

Representative sample 

of grazed 

area.

Every 5 to 10 

years

On a priority 

basis monitor 

allotments 

before 

livestock 

turnout.

Conditions 

are not 

meeting 

goals and 

objectives 

for 

vegetation 

due 

specifically 

to livestock 

grazing 

management.

Inconsistent with 

Guidelines 

for Livestock Grazing Management, and 

Wyoming 

Rangeland 

Monitoring 

Guide, and 

similar guidance updated 

over time.

Not meeting 

or moving 

towards 

Wyoming 

Standards 

for Healthy 

Rangelands.
Worland Approved RMP 369

Appendix H Monitoring and Evaluation

September 2015 Resource Monitoring Table

Resource Record 

Number Indicator Method or Technique Location Unit of 

Measure Frequency Action Triggers

Livestock 

Grazing

M-11 Forage 

utilization

Utilization 

study plot 

or site visit; 

monitoring 

plans are 

included in 

Allotment

Management 

Plans.

Priority 

allotments

or as needed.

Representative sample 

of grazed 

area.

On a priority 

basis, 

monitor 

during and 

after the area 

has been 

grazed.

Utilization 

consistently 

exceeds 

prescribed 

levels 

identified 

in the 

utilization 

Appendix 

W (of the 

Proposed 

RMP and 

Final EIS) 

or the vigor

of key plant 

species is 

declining.

M-12 Livestock 

numbers.

Counts and 

site visits; 

monitoring 

plans are 

included in 

Allotment 

Management 

Plans.

Varies by 

allotment.

Number of 

allotments 

or operators 

inspected.

Annually 

or when

livestock are 

moved on 

or off the 

allotment.

Livestock 

numbers exceeding permitted numbers or in areas unauthorized.

Minerals M-13 Surface 

disturbance.

Remote 

sensing 

or site

inspection.

Mineral 

development 

sites.

Acres 

disturbed.

Bi-annual or 

more.

Acres 

disturbed 

exceeding 

the range 

established 

for the area.

M-14 Compliance 

with authorization.

Area 

inspection.

Area wide. Compliance. During 

operations 

at least

bi-annually.

Noncompliance.

Off-Highway 

Vehicles

M-15 Off-highway 

vehicle disturbance; establishment 

of unauthorized vehicle 

routes.

Remote 

sensing 

or site

visit; traffic

counter data.

Travel 

Management 

Area; sitespecific

to area of 

disturbance.

Miles of 

routes; 

acres of 

disturbance.

Prioritize 

areas and 

monitor 

higher 

priority

areas every 

1‐3 years 

and lower 

priority areas 

every 2‐4 

years.

Disturbance 

exceeding 

the baseline, 

accelerated 

soil erosion 

occurring, 

and 

vegetation 

being 

removed.

Paleontology M-16 Significant 

paleontological resources.

Site 

inspection.

Site. Degradation 

or loss of 

significant 

fossil 

resources.

Annually. Loss or 

damage to 

significant 

fossil 

resources 

as a result 

of human 

or natural 

causes.
370 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix H Monitoring and Evaluation 

Resource Monitoring Table September 2015

Resource Record 

Number Indicator Method or Technique Location Unit of 

Measure Frequency Action Triggers

Recreation M-17 General 

recreation 

use; 

realization 

of desired 

beneficial 

outcomes.

Onsite 

Inspection, 

visitor

use data, 

surveys; 

document 

user 

conflicts or 

complaints.

Area 

wide with 

emphasis

on SRMAs 

and ERMAs 

with high 

visitation; 

areas not 

managed as 

recreation 

management 

areas but 

recognized 

for 

recreational 

use and 

resources.

Changes to 

desired recreation setting characteristics; 

changes in 

experiences 

and realized desired 

beneficial 

outcomes; 

changes in 

types, seasons or levels 

of use.

Prioritize 

areas and 

monitor 

higher 

priority areas 

(SRMAs and 

ERMAs)

every 1-3 

years and 

lower 

priority areas 

every 3‐5 

years.

When visitor 

surveys

or public 

comments 

indicate that 

recreation 

area 

management 

objectives 

are not met; 

when desired 

settings, 

experiences, 

and 

beneficial 

outcomes are 

not realized; 

when change 

is causing 

undue or 

unnecessary 

degradation 

of the site or 

area; when 

change is 

causing goal 

interference 

and conflicts.

M-18 Concentrated 

recreation 

use.

Inspect 

developed 

recreation 

sites or areas 

that have 

facilities.

Recreation 

site.

Condition of 

recreation 

site, 

facilities, 

visits and 

visitor days.

Annually. When 

change is 

causing 

undue or 

unnecessary 

degradation 

of facilities 

and use 

areas; public 

complaints.

M-19 Compliance 

with commercial authorization.

Administrative review, 

site inspection.

Activity site. Permit 

stipulations, 

resource 

conditions, 

and site 

restoration.

During 

and after 

an event; 

annually 

for other

commercial 

users.

When noncompliance 

is determined 

or 

degradation 

of resources 

is occurring.
Worland Approved RMP 371

Appendix H Monitoring and Evaluation

September 2015 Resource Monitoring Table

Resource Record 

Number Indicator Method or Technique Location Unit of 

Measure Frequency Action Triggers

Special 

Designations

M-20 Resource 

condition.

Site visit 

or remote

Special 

designation

Amount of 

degradation

The BLM 

will monitor

Undue or 

unnecessary

and sensing. and or loss of the impacts degradation

Management management resources; that Resource or loss of

Areas area. impacts to Management resources

important Plan imple- or important

and relevant mentation and relevant

resources. and other resources

approved as a result

projects of human

have on Na- or natural

tional Trail causes.

resources,

qualities, values, and associated settings and the

primary use

or uses, including determining the

effectiveness

of design features, project

stipulations,

and mitigation measures on a

regular basis

as the Resource Management Plan

and projects

are implemented.

Wilderness M-21 Wilderness Site visits; Wilderness Miles of Annually. Failure to

Study Areas Character- aerial Study Areas. linear hu- meet the nonistics (size, monitoring. man intru- impairment

naturalness, sions; acres standard

outstanding disturbed; or other

opportunities impacts to objectives

for primitive wilderness outlined

and uncon- characteris- in Manual

fined recre- tics identi- 6330.

ation or soli- fied by onsite

tude, supple- visit or pubmental val- lic comment.

ues).
372 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix H Monitoring and Evaluation 

Resource Monitoring Table September 2015

Resource Record 

Number Indicator Method or Technique Location Unit of 

Measure Frequency Action Triggers

Travel and 

Transportation Management

M-22 Roads and 

trails.3

Route 

management 

categories 

and 

maintenance 

levels; onsite 

inspection

or remote 

sensing; 

traffic 

counter data.

Area wide. Miles. Per Facility 

Asset 

Management 

System 

Condition 

Assessment 

Plans.

Conditions 

represent a 

hazard to life 

and property; 

route 

conditions 

do not meet 

identified 

road 

standards.

M-23 Seasonal 

closures.6

Aerial 

and field

inspections.

Travel 

Management 

Areas with 

seasonal 

closures for 

wildlife.

Acres. Every 5 

years.

Changes 

in use of 

seasonal 

habitat 

requiring 

closure.
Worland Approved RMP 373

Appendix H Monitoring and Evaluation

September 2015 Resource Monitoring Table

Resource Record 

Number Indicator Method or Technique Location Unit of 

Measure Frequency Action Triggers

Vegetation M-24 Trend. BLM

approved 

monitoring 

methods.

Area wide. Representative sample.

Every 2 to 10 

years.

Not meeting or moving towards 

the goals and 

objectives 

for 4000 

Biological 

Resources 

(BR) Vegetation-Grassland and 

Shrubland 

Communities or the 

Wyoming 

Standards 

for Healthy 

Rangelands.

M-25 Precipitation.1

Weather 

stations.

Representative sample to detect 

precipitation 

patterns.

Inches of 

precipitation.

Monthly and 

annually.

N/A.

M-26 Climate.1 Weather 

stations.

Representative sample 

to detect patterns.

Degrees. Monthly and 

annually.

N/A.

M-27 Noxious 

weed and 

invasive 

plant trends.4

Remote 

sensing or 

site visit.

Priority 

areas.

Acres of 

established 

weeds and 

potential 

habitat areas.

Annually. Spreading 

or establishment of invasive species 

in new areas.

M-28 Special 

Status 

Species.

Site 

inspection.

Special 

Status 

Species’ 

habitats.

Population 

and trend.

Annually. A declining 

trend in 

populations.

M-29 Wetland/ 

riparian 

condition.

Proper 

Functioning 

Condition.

Priority 

wetlands/ 

riparian 

areas.

Stream miles 

and acres 

along with 

rating.

Every 1 to 3 

years.

Not 

achieving 

Proper 

Functioning 

Condition 

or not 

exhibiting

and upward 

trend.
374 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix H Monitoring and Evaluation 

Resource Monitoring Table September 2015

Resource Record 

Number Indicator Method or Technique Location Unit of 

Measure Frequency Action Triggers

Visual 

Resource 

Management

M-30 Project 

conformance 

with VRM 

Class 

Objectives.

Remote 

sensing or 

site visit; 

Visual 

Resource 

Contrast 

Rating 

from Key

Observation 

Points; 

Visual 

simulations.

Class I, II, 

and sensitive 

III and IV 

areas.

Measure the 

degree of 

contrasting 

elements 

against the 

surrounding natural 

elements of

the landscape 

(color, form, 

line, etc.) before and after 

implementation of an 

action.

Visual Contrast Ratings 

will be prepared for 

projects in 

visually sensitive areas; 

comparison 

of pre and 

post implementation 

data will

Intrusion 

that exceeds 

thresholds 

for meeting 

VRM Class 

Objectives.

evaluate the

sufficiency of

project design features

in meeting

VRM Class

Objectives.
Worland Approved RMP 375

Appendix H Monitoring and Evaluation

September 2015 Resource Monitoring Table

Resource Record 

Number Indicator Method or Technique Location Unit of 

Measure Frequency Action Triggers

Water 

Quality, 

Watershed 

and Soils 

Management

M-31 Surface 

water 

quality.5

Water 

sampling.

All surface 

water.

Milligrams 

per liter and 

tons per day.

On a priority 

basis.

Water quality 

does not 

meet state 

standards.

M-32 Groundwater 

quality.5

Groundwater 

sampling.

Established 

monitoring 

stations.

Representative sample of water

quality.

Annually. Water quality 

does not 

meet state 

standards

and water

is migrating

from one

aquifer to

another.

M-33 Channel Riparian Priority Change Every 1 to 3 Conditions

geometry. cross streams. in stream years. are moving

sections. channel away from

(width, Proper

depth, side Functioning

channel Condition.

modification,

and bank

sloughing).

M-34 Soil erosion Visual Area wide Soil loss in Visual When soil

uplands. observation where tons per acre. examination loss is

and surveyed land use while land accelerated

erosion pins. activities are use activity beyond

occurring. is active and natural

annual site levels.

surveys.

M-35 Soil erosion Visual Area wide Area affected Visual Water table

on stream observation where in square feet examination is shrinking

banks and and surveyed land use or acres. while land beyond

floodplains. erosion pins. activities are use activity average

occurring. is active and precipitation

annual site fluctuations.

surveys.

M-36 Soil 

compaction.

Penetrometer 

or visual 

inspection.

Area affected 

by land use 

activities.

Pounds per 

square inch.

1 to 2 times 

annually.

Compaction 

restricts 

water

infiltration

and plant

growth.

M-37 Soil Monitor- Riparian Depth to Every 2 to 3 Accelerated

compaction, ing wells areas. water table. years. stream bank

porosity, (peizome- soil loss.

permeability, ters).

and depth to

water.
376 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix H Monitoring and Evaluation 

Resource Monitoring Table September 2015

Resource Record 

Number Indicator Method or Technique Location Unit of 

Measure Frequency Action Triggers

Wildlife and M-38 Big game Aerial Crucial Numbers Annually. A change

Fisheries6 seasonal and field wildlife during in numbers

habitat. inspections. habitat areas. occupancy beyond

periods. the normal

fluctuations.

M-39 Special Aerial Habitat Numbers Annually. A decline

Status and field areas and during in numbers

Species inspections. established occupancy beyond

occupancy buffer zones. periods. the normal

and fluctuations.

productivity.

M-40 Threatened Aerial Habitat Numbers Annually. A decline

and and field areas and during in numbers

endangered inspections. established occupancy beyond

species buffer zones. periods. the normal

occupancy fluctuations.

and

productivity.

M-41 Macroinvertebrate indicator species.

Collecting 

macroinvertebrate 

species.

Perennial 

streams.

Species and 

condition of 

macroinvertebrates.

Every 2 to 10 

years.

No presence 

of macroinvertebrates 

that represent 

good quality

water in the

stream.

M-42 Migratory Site visit. Area wide. Numbers Every 2 to 3 Declining

bird habitat. during years. trend in

occupancy habitat

period. occupancy.

M-43 Raptors. Site visit. Area wide. Nest 

occupancy 

rate.

Every 2 to 5 

years.

Declining 

trend in 

nest site

occupancy.

Waterway 

corridors 

eligible for 

inclusion into 

the National 

Wild and 

Scenic River 

System

M-44 Waterwayspecific 

identified 

ORV.

Site visits, 

monitoring, 

and project 

proposals.

Eligible 

waterway 

corridors.

Miles of 

linear human 

intrusions; 

acres 

disturbed, 

impacts to 

corridor 

specific

Annually, or 

when site 

specific issue 

arises.

Impacts to 

corridor 

specific 

identified 

ORVs.

ORVs as

observed

by onsite

visit, public

comment,

or project

proposals.
Worland Approved RMP 377

Appendix H Monitoring and Evaluation

September 2015 Resource Monitoring Table

Resource Record 

Number Indicator Method or Technique Location Unit of 

Measure Frequency Action Triggers 1Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division is responsible for data collection.

2The State Historic Preservation Officer is responsible for data collection. 3The County with jurisdiction is responsible for data collection.

4The Weed and Pest District and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service are responsible for data collection.

5Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Division is responsible for data collection. 6Wyoming Game and Fish Department is responsible for data collection.

BLM Bureau of Land Management RMP Resource Management Plan

BR Biological Resources ORV Outstandingly Remarkable Value 

ERMA Extensive Recreation Management Area SRMA Special Recreation Management Area 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement VRM Visual Resource Management

N/A Not Applicable
This page intentionally 

left blank
Worland Approved RMP 379

Appendix I. Land Disposal and Acquisition

I.1. Land Tenure Descriptions

The Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Worland Field Office identifies land retention and disposal as defined in Table I.1, “Land Tenure

Descriptions” (p. 379) below.

Table I.1. Land Tenure Descriptions

Land Tenure Description

Retention Not available for disposal, except by R&PP or only by 

exchange if land with better resource values could be 

obtained.

Disposal Available for disposal. Could include community 

expansion or to adjust property boundaries or to meet 

agriculture needs.

Example: Sale of land having an existing gas processing 

plant. A FLPMA sale to a local government or private 

party. Airport Grant to a local government. Patent of 

R&PP lease1. Public lands without resource conflicts 

within 2 miles of communities.

Other (Disposal for the Westside Irrigation Project) Pursuant to an act of Congress, convey all right, title, 

and interest (excluding mineral interest) to the Westside 

Irrigation District after completion of an environmental 

analysis under NEPA. Lands within the boundary which 

are not conveyed under the final decision for thistransfer 

(patent) would be retained in federal ownership and 

would not be available for other disposal actions. (Public 

Law 106-485 [November 9, 2000; 114 Stat. 2199])

1The planning area is open to applications for conveyances to qualified applicants under the Recreation and Public 

Purpose Act or Federal Public Airport Act.

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes

I.2. Lands Available for Disposal

Properties listed in Table I.2, “Properties Identified for Disposal in the Planning

Area” (p. 380) below, were identified in the Worland Field Office Approved RMP as areas 

available for consideration for disposal by employing the “isolated, difficult or expensive to 

manage, or needed-for community expansion” disposal criteria in the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA). The areas below were identified during the RMP revision process as 

complying with FLPMA disposal criteria. Inclusion in this table does not constitute a decision 

that the land will be disposed. Before taking any disposal action, consideration will be given to 

each individual tract and will include public involvement. The preferred method of disposal or 

acquisition of lands is through exchanges. Proposals for disposal of lands not identified in this 

table will be considered if they are consistent with the objectives of the Approved RMP and may 

require a land use plan amendment. 

September 2015

Appendix I Land Disposal and Acquisition

Land Tenure Descriptions
380 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix I Land Disposal and Acquisition 

Lands Available for Disposal September 2015

Table I.2. Properties Identified for Disposal in the Planning Area

Legal Description and (Acreage)1

T. 41N., R. 87W., sec. 1, lot 11 (5.15)

T. 41N., R. 87W., sec. 7, E2SE (79.64)

T. 41N., R. 87W., sec. 8, lot 1, S2S2 (172.89)

T. 41N., R. 87W., sec. 11, lot 5, NENW (64.27)

T. 41N., R. 87W., sec. 14, lots 5-7, N2SE, NESW (145.19)

T. 41N., R. 87W., sec. 16, lot 1 (105.28)

T. 41N., R. 87W., sec. 19, SENE (40.52)

T. 41N., R. 87W., sec. 20, lot 1, SWNW, N2SW, NWSE (193.59)

T. 41N., R. 87W., sec. 22, lot 4, lot 8, SENE (54.39)

T. 41N., R. 87W., sec. 23, lots 9,10 (65.99)

T. 41N., R. 88W., sec. 13, NWSE (42.07)

T. 41N., R. 88W., sec. 15, NENE (39.17)

T. 41N., R. 88W., sec. 22, lot 5, SESW (58.59)

T. 41N., R. 88W., sec. 24, W2NE, SENW, N2SW (203.87)

T. 41N., R. 90W., sec. 2, lot 1, S2NE, NWSE (159.72)

T. 41N., R. 90W., sec. 13, E2SE (86.41)

T. 41N., R. 90W., sec. 20, SENE (40.12)

T. 41N., R. 90W., sec. 21, NWNW (40.18)

T. 41N., R. 90W., sec. 23, W2SW (82.33)

T. 41N., R. 90W., sec. 24, N2NE, SENE, SENW, NESW (214.37)

T. 41N., R. 90W., sec. 26, NENW (40.26)

T. 41N., R. 90W., sec. 27, NWNE (40.23)

T. 41N., R. 91W., sec. 9, E2SW, SE (227.20)

T. 41N., R. 91W., sec. 11, SESW (41.19)

T. 41N., R. 91W., sec. 17, E2NE, NESE (126.16)

T. 41N., R. 91W., sec. 18, NESE (42.17)

T. 41N., R. 91W., sec. 24, SWNW (42.26)

T. 41N., R. 91W., sec. 29, NESW (40.66)

T. 41N., R. 91W., sec. 35, SWNW (39.46)

T. 41N., R. 92W., sec. 9, SWSW (40.32)

T. 41N., R. 92W., sec. 11, SENW (38.81)

T. 41N., R. 92W., sec. 15, SESW (38.39)

T. 41N., R. 92W., sec. 21, SWNE, NWSE (81.19)

T. 41N., R. 92W., sec. 22, W2NE, E2NW, SW, SESE (247.76)

T. 41N., R. 92W., sec. 27, NENE, SWNE, S2NW (162.69)

T. 41N., R. 92W., sec. 28, S2NE, SENW (121.63)

T. 41N., R. 93W., sec. 3, lots 1,4, SWNW (121.06)

T. 41N., R. 93W., sec. 4, SENE (39.98)

T. 41N., R. 93W., sec. 14, W2NW, N2SW (160.51)

T. 41N., R. 93W., sec. 15, E2NE (80.65)

T. 41N., R. 93W., sec. 22, S2NW, W2SE, NESW (205.08)

T. 41N., R. 93W., sec. 23, E2W2 (157.69)

T. 41N., R. 93W., sec. 34, SESE (38.17)

T. 41N., R. 93W., sec. 35, S2SW (78.83)

T. 42N., R. 86W., sec. 20, SWNW (39.29)

T. 42N., R. 86W., sec. 30, N2NE, W2W2, SENW (269.65)

T. 42N., R. 86W., sec. 31, N2N2 (155.69)

T. 42N., R. 86W., sec. 32, S2SW (78.43)

T. 42N., R. 86W., sec. 22, SESE (39.84)

T. 42N., R. 86W., sec. 32, W2NW, NWSW (118.79)

T. 42N., R. 87W., sec. 10, SWNE, W2SE (120.83)
Worland Approved RMP 381

Appendix I Land Disposal and Acquisition

September 2015 Lands Available for Disposal

Legal Description and (Acreage)1

T. 42N., R. 87W., sec. 15, NWNE (40.27)

T. 42N., R. 87W., sec. 25, E2SE (84.39)

T. 42N., R. 87W., sec. 34, NWNE, SWNW, N2S2 (240.69)

T. 42N., R. 90W., sec. 30, E2NE (80.56)

T. 42N., R. 91W., sec. 1, NWSE (40.39)

T. 42N., R. 93W., sec. 15, NWSW (40.07)

T. 42N., R. 93W., sec. 20, SWSE (40.12)

T. 42N., R. 93W., sec. 21, NENW (39.98)

T. 42N., R. 93W., sec. 27, N2SE (79.99)

T. 42N., R. 93W., sec. 29, SWNE, NESW, NWSE (119.08)

T. 42N., R. 93W., sec. 28, NE, E2SE (239.12)

T. 42N., R. 93W., sec. 32, SE (158.22)

T. 42N., R. 93W., sec. 33, SW, NWSE, S2NW, NWNW (318.48)

T. 42N., R. 93W., sec. 34, NENW (39.83)

T. 42N., R. 96W., sec. 1, W2SE, SESE (119.83)

T. 42N., R. 96W., sec. 11, lot 4, NWNE, S2NE, SE, SESW (362.92)

T. 42N., R. 96W., sec. 23, lot 1 (43.30)

T. 43N., R. 86W., sec. 2, lot 4, SW, S2NW (278.99)

T. 43N., R. 86W., sec. 3, lot 1, SESE (80.58)

T. 43N., R. 86W., sec. 11, NWNE, NWNW, N2NW, (156.03)

T. 43N., R. 86W., sec. 12, E2SE (78.20)

T. 43N., R. 86W., sec. 24, SESE (39.39)

T. 43N., R. 87W., sec. 4, lot 2, SWSE, E2SE (160.29)

T. 43N., R. 87W., sec. 5, E2SW, W2SE (161.37)

T. 43N., R. 87W., sec. 7, E2NE (78.86)

T. 43N., R. 87W., sec. 8, NENW, E2SW (120.60)

T. 43N., R. 87W., sec. 9, NESE (40.02)

T. 43N., R. 87W., sec. 17, E2NE, S2SW (161.34)

T. 43N., R. 87W., sec. 19, NESE (40.20)

T. 43N., R. 87W., sec. 20, NWNE, E2NW, SWNW, NWSW (201.99)

T. 43N., R. 87W., sec. 30, E2SE (80.48)

T. 43N., R. 87W., sec. 31, NENE (39.84)

T. 43N., R. 90W., sec. 15, E2SE (80.00)

T. 43N., R. 90W., sec. 26, NW (160.34)

T. 43N., R. 90W., sec. 30, lots 5,6 (24.02)

T. 43N., R. 92W., sec. 22, 51D (10.00) Patented 49-2011-005

T. 43N., R. 95W., sec. 26, SWNW (39.58)

T. 43N., R. 95W., sec. 27, SENE (39.60)

T. 43N., R. 96W., sec. 26, lot 4, SESW (84.38)

T. 43N., R. 96W., sec. 35, lots 1-3, NENW (169.43)

T. 43N., R. 99W., sec. 1, SWNE (40.00)

T. 43N., R. 99W., sec. 9, S2SW, SWSE (120.00)

T. 43N., R. 99W., sec. 17, S2SE (80.00)

T. 43N., R. 99W., sec. 18, SESW (40.00)

T. 43N., R. 99W., sec. 19, NENW (40.00)

T. 43N., R. 99W., sec. 20, NENW, N2NE (120.00)

T. 43N., R. 99W., sec. 21, NWNW (40.00)

T. 43N., R. 100W., sec. 9, E2NE, SE (239.98)

T. 43N., R. 100W., sec. 10, W2SW (81.72)

T. 43N., R. 100W., sec. 11, SWNE (39.92)

T. 43N., R. 100W., sec. 15, NW, W2NE (237.96)

T. 43N., R. 100W., sec. 17, N2NE, SENE (119.36)

T. 43N., R. 100W., sec. 21, S2NW, N2SW, SWNE (202.43)
382 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix I Land Disposal and Acquisition 

Lands Available for Disposal September 2015

Legal Description and (Acreage)1

T. 43N., R. 100W., sec. 23, SESE (40.54)

T. 44N., R. 86W., sec. 1, S2SW (79.22)

T. 44N., R. 86W., sec. 2, SESW, E2SE (117.33)

T. 44N., R. 86W., sec. 11, N2NE, S2SW, NESE (194.74)

T. 44N., R. 86W., sec. 12, NW, N2SW, SESW (279.53)

T. 44N., R. 86W., sec. 14, SWNE, SENW, NWSE, NESW (159.51)

T. 44N., R. 86W., sec. 15, SESW, W2SE (120.69)

T. 44N., R. 86W., sec. 22, NENW (40.51)

T. 44N., R. 86W., sec. 24, E2NE, SENW, SESE (161.89)

T. 44N., R. 86W., sec. 25, S2SE (82.47)

T. 44N., R. 86W., sec. 33, SESE (39.65)

T. 44N., R. 86W., sec. 34, NWSW (40.64)

T. 44N., R. 86W., sec. 35, E2NE, NESE (122.22)

T. 44N., R. 87W., sec. 1, lot 3, SENW, SESW (123.63)

T. 44N., R. 87W., sec. 6, lots 3,4 (73.64)

T. 44N., R. 87W., sec. 8, SWNW, W2SW, SESW (157.01)

T. 44N., R. 87W., sec. 17, N2NW (81.06)

T. 44N., R. 87W., sec. 29, S2NE, SENW, NESW, SE (309.50)

T. 44N., R. 87W., sec. 32, NE, SENW (191.39)

T. 44N., R. 87W., sec. 33, S2NW, SENE, W2SE (198.55)

T. 44N., R. 88W., sec. 1, 38A (39.80)

T. 44N., R. 94W., sec. 17, W2NW (73.92)

T. 44N., R. 94W., sec. 18, NENE, S2NE, N2SE, SESE (212.29)

T. 44N., R. 94W., sec. 19, lots 1,2, SENW (128.03)

T. 44N., R. 98W., sec. 27, SESE, W2E2, SENW, NESW, NWSW (321.00)

T. 44N., R. 98W., sec. 22, NESE, S2SE (120.52)

T. 44N., R. 98W., sec. 26, NESW, S2SW (121.93)

T. 44N., R. 98W., sec. 34, E2NE, NESE (120.45)

T. 44N., R. 99W., sec. 22, N2SE (79.40)

T. 44N., R. 99W., sec. 23, N2SW, NWSE (120.36)

T. 45N., R. 86W., sec. 1, S2NE, NESE (122.35)

T. 45N., R. 86W., sec. 4, lot 3, SENW (83.66)

T. 45N., R. 86W., sec. 31, lots 3,4, E2SW (155.79)

T. 45N., R. 86W., sec. 32, S2NE (80.54)

T. 45N., R. 86W., sec. 35, NWNW (38.90)

T. 45N., R. 94W., sec. 15, lot 11. (2.0)

T. 45N., R. 97W., sec. 23, S2SE (78.37)

T. 45N., R. 97W., sec. 28, SENE (39.48)

T. 45N., R. 97W., sec. 29, SENW, E2SW, SESE (159.23)

T. 45N., R. 97W., sec. 32, NENW, SWNW (79.97)

T. 45N., R. 98W., sec. 5, lots 1,2, SWNE (119.07)

T. 45N., R. 99W., sec. 5, lots 3,4, SWNW (124.14)

T. 45N., R. 99W., sec. 14, S2NE (78.09)

T. 45N., R. 100W., sec. 8, SWSW (40.90)

T. 45N., R. 100W., sec. 9, NESW (39.85)

T. 45N., R. 100W., sec. 10, SESW (41.01)

T. 45N., R. 100W., sec. 12, S2NE, NWSE, SW (283.17)

T. 45N., R. 100W., sec. 13, NWNW, NESE (81.68)

T. 45N., R. 100W., sec. 14, W2 (321.40)

T. 45N., R. 100W., sec. 15, N2N2 (160.63)

T. 45N., R. 100W., sec. 31, SESE (40.12)

T. 46N., R. 86W., sec. 1, SWNE (39.87)

T. 46N., R. 86W., sec. 3, lots 5-8* (171.40)

T. 46N., R. 86W., sec. 4, lots 1,4 (82.62)
Worland Approved RMP 383

Appendix I Land Disposal and Acquisition

September 2015 Lands Available for Disposal

Legal Description and (Acreage)1

T. 46N., R. 86W., sec. 12, NENW (42.37)

T. 46N., R. 86W., sec. 13, SWSW (40.94)

T. 46N., R. 86W., sec. 14, SESE (40.72)

T. 46N., R. 86W., sec. 26, NENE (39.91)

T. 46N., R. 87W., sec. 1, S2NWNW, SWNW, NESE (102.05)

T. 46N., R. 87W., sec. 10, N2NE, NENW (120.00)

T. 46N., R. 87W., sec. 20, NE, N2NW (240.00)

T. 46N., R. 87W., sec. 21, W2NW, (40.00)

T. 46N., R. 87W., sec. 25, SESW, SWSE (80.83)

T. 46N., R. 87W., sec. 29, NESW, NWSE, S2SW (161.20)

T. 46N., R. 87W., sec. 30, NESW (40.75)

T. 46N., R. 88W., sec. 2, lots 6-9, SESE (210.79)

T. 46N., R. 88W., sec. 11, lot 1 (3.73)

T. 46N., R. 88W., sec. 13, lots 2,3,5,6,7 (103.11)

T. 46N., R. 88W., sec. 14, lots 1,7,8 (20.29)

T. 46N., R. 94W., sec. 5, lot 16 (39.71)

T. 46N., R. 94W., sec. 9, NWSW (40.12)

T. 46N., R. 98W., sec. 27, S2NW (81.63)

T. 46N., R. 98W., sec. 32, SWSE (40.65)

T. 46N., R. 99W., sec. 13, SESE (31.24)

T. 46N., R. 99W., sec. 22, S2SW (78.44)

T. 46N., R. 99W., sec. 24, lot 3 (2.50)

T. 46N., R. 99W., sec. 27, NW, NWSW (199.30)

T. 46N., R. 99W., sec. 32, NWSE (41.75)

T. 46N., R. 100W., sec. 3, lots 1-4, SWNW, NWSW (248.09)

T. 46N., R. 100W., sec. 4, SWNW, SW, NESE (247.34)

T. 46N., R. 100W., sec. 6, E2SW (81.62)

T. 46N., R. 100W., sec. 7, lot 2, NENW (80.39)

T. 46N., R. 100W., sec. 11, NENE, NWSE (82.20)

T. 46N., R. 100W., sec. 18, SENW, SWNE (81.35)

T. 46N., R. 100W., sec. 20, NENE (40.69)

T. 46N., R. 100W., sec. 21, NWNW, SENW (82.25)

T. 46N., R. 101W., sec. 1, lots 9-11 (50.55)

T. 46N., R. 101W., sec. 3, lot 11 (20.93)

T. 46N., R. 101W., sec. 4, lot 9, S2SW (102.36)

T. 46N., R. 101W., sec. 5, lot 6 (39.36)

T. 47N., R. 86W., sec. 1, lot 3, SENW, E2SE (160.13)

T. 47N., R. 86W., sec. 10, NENE (39.84)

T. 47N., R. 86W., sec. 11, NWNW, SESW, SE (239.64)

T. 47N., R. 86W., sec. 12, N2NE, SWNE, SW, SESE (319.42)

T. 47N., R. 86W., sec. 13, lots 1,2, NWNW (124.38)

T. 47N., R. 86W., sec. 14, NENE (39.86)

T. 47N., R. 86W., sec. 15, SWSE (40.37)

T. 47N., R. 86W., sec. 24, SE (160.00)

T. 47N., R. 86W., sec. 25, E2NE (83.00) duplicate

T. 47N., R. 86W., sec. 25, E2NE, S2NW, W2SW (240.00)

T. 47N., R. 86W., sec. 34, NENW (40.00)

T. 47N., R. 88W., sec. 17, Tr. 64 B-D (139.30)

T. 47N., R. 88W., sec. 21, lots 2,3 (75.37)

T. 47N., R. 87W., sec. 21, S2SE (77.61)

T. 47N., R. 87W., sec. 28, SESW (40.68)

T. 47N., R. 87W., sec. 33, NENW (40.57)

T. 47N., R. 87W., sec. 34, S2SWNE, S2NW, N2SE (181.57)
384 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix I Land Disposal and Acquisition 

Lands Available for Disposal September 2015

Legal Description and (Acreage)1

T. 47N., R. 87W., sec. 35, W2SWSW, SESWSW (30.18)

T. 47N., R. 89W., sec. 3, lots 7,8 (89.42)

T. 47N., R. 92W., sec. 10, NWSW (40.20)

T. 47N., R. 92.5W., sec. 13, Tr. 65 B, C (66.15)

T. 47N., R. 93W., sec. 12, lot 15; Tr. 63 Clot, Dlot; Tr. 65 A (19.27)

T. 47N., R. 93W., sec. 13, Tr. 63 Clot-Hlot; Tr. 65 D, E; Tr. 65 A, D, E (256.46)

T. 47N., R. 93W., sec. 23, lots 1-3, S2NE, NWSE (216.75)

T. 47N., R. 93W., sec. 24, lots 3,4 (59.46)

T. 47N., R. 93W., sec. 26, lot 1 (27.81)

T. 47N., R. 100W., sec. 7, lot 4 (41.41)

T. 47N., R. 100W., sec. 15, S2SW (82.43)

T. 47N., R. 100W., sec. 17, SWSE (40.64)

T. 47N., R. 100W., sec. 19, lot 2 (41.29)

T. 47N., R. 100W., sec. 20, N2NW, SENW, NESW, S2SW, W2E2, (401.68)

T. 47N., R. 100W., sec. 21, NE, SENW (205.11)

T. 47N., R. 100W., sec. 22, NW, N2SW (246.40)

T. 47N., R. 100W., sec. 25, NWNW, NESW (89.04)

T. 47N., R. 100W., sec. 26, NENW, S2N2, SESE (241.74)

T. 47N., R. 100W., sec. 27, NENW, S2SW, SESE, (168.84)

T. 47N., R. 100W., sec. 28, E2SW, W2SE, SESE (207.01)

T. 47N., R. 100W., sec. 29, NW, NWSW (196.84)

T. 47N., R. 100W., sec. 30, lots 2-4, SESW (159.19)

T. 47N., R. 100W., sec. 31, lot 1, NENW, S2NE (160.18)

T. 47N., R. 100W., sec. 32, E2, E2NW, SWNW, SW (691.55)

T. 47N., R. 100W., sec. 33, NW, N2NE, SWNE, N2SW (372.84)

T. 47N., R. 100W., sec. 34, S2S2, N2NW (248.66)

T. 47N., R. 100W., sec. 35, E2SE, SWSW (124.57)

T. 47N., R. 101W., sec. 1, lots 3,4 (79.81)

T. 47N., R. 101W., sec. 2, lot 1 (39.75)

T. 47N., R. 101W., sec. 11, NENE (40.16)

T. 47N., R. 101W., sec. 24, S2SW (80.54)

T. 47N., R. 101W., sec. 25, SWNW, NWSW (78.34)

T. 47N., R. 101W., sec. 35, SWNE (40.28)

T. 48N., R. 88W., sec. 29, lot 2 (20.98)

T. 48N., R. 89W., sec. 18, N2SWNE, NENW, N2SENW (80.00)

T. 48N., R. 89W., sec. 25, N2N2 (76.77)

T. 48N., R. 89W., sec. 26, N2N2NE (38.37)

T. 48N., R. 90W., sec. 2, Tr. 91-93 (109.94)

T. 48N., R. 90W., sec. 3, lots 5-8 (119.69)

T. 48N., R. 90W., sec. 4, lots 6-8, T49-51; T61-63 (235.24)

T. 48N., R. 90W., sec. 5, Tr. 51 (33.97)

T. 48N., R. 90W., sec. 10, lot 1 (25.39)

T. 48N., R. 90W., sec. 11, lots 1-6; Tr. 103, 104 (225.38)

T. 48N., R. 90W., sec. 13, lots 3,6 (51.17)

T. 48N., R. 99W., sec. 3, All (678.78)

T. 48N., R. 99W., sec. 4, lots 5-8 (62.03)

T. 48N., R. 99W., sec. 5, lots 5-8 (58.53)

T. 48N., R. 99W., sec. 6, lots 8-11, SESE (95.89)

T. 48N., R. 99W., sec. 7, lot 4, SESW, SE (246.73)

T. 48N., R. 99W., sec. 10, lots 1-3, lot 5, NWNE, N2NW, SWNW, SWSW (310.03)

T. 48N., R. 99W., sec. 11, lot 2 (35.31)

T. 48N., R. 99W., sec. 17, N2NE, SENE, NESE (163.55)

T. 48N., R. 99W., sec. 18, lot 1, NENW (82.97)
Worland Approved RMP 385

Appendix I Land Disposal and Acquisition

September 2015 Lands Available for Disposal

Legal Description and (Acreage)1

T. 48N., R. 89W., sec. 21, SW1/4SW1/4NW1/4 (10)

T. 48N., R. 100W., sec. 1, lots 5-8 (72.52)

T. 48N., R. 100W., sec. 3, lot 1, SENE, S2SE (161.86)

T. 48N., R. 100W., sec. 10, E2NE, NWNE (125.93)

T. 48N., R. 100W., sec. 11, NW, N2SW, S2SE, SESW (379.47)

T. 48N., R. 100W., sec. 12, E2, S2SW (400.00)

T. 48N., R. 100W., sec. 13, NW, N2NE, NESW (293.44)

T. 48N., R. 100W., sec. 14, NE (167.56)

T. 48N., R. 100W., sec. 21, S2NE, NWSE, NESW (164.49)

T. 48N., R. 100W., sec. 22, NESW (40.75)

T. 48N., R. 100W., sec. 23, N2NW (82.12)

T. 48N., R. 101W., sec. 35, E2W2 (163.85)

T. 49N., R. 90W., sec. 4, lots 9,15 (40.19)

T. 49N., R. 90W., sec. 8, Tr. 61 B, 61 I (76.18)

T. 49N., R. 90W., sec. 19, lot 6 (29.50)

T. 49N., R. 90W., sec. 29, lots 1,2, E2SW, SWNW (185.15)

T. 49N., R. 90W., sec. 30, lots 5,6 (47.48)

T. 49N., R. 90W., sec. 32, lots 1,2 (63.83)

T. 49N., R. 90W., sec. 33, lots 2,4,5 (128.50)

T. 49N., R. 98W., sec. 19, E2E2, SWSE (199.89)

T. 49N., R. 98W., sec. 29, NENE, N2NW (120.00)

T. 49N., R. 98W., sec. 20, SW (160.18)

T. 49N., R. 98W., sec. 30, N2NE (79.95)

T. 49N., R. 99W., sec. 19, lot 8 (39.60)

T. 49N., R. 99W., sec. 30, lots 5,6, E2NW (159.03)

T. 49N., R. 100W., sec. 24, S2SE (77.87)

T. 49N., R. 100W., sec. 25, S2 (314.23)

T. 49N., R. 100W., sec. 36, lots 1-4 (110.68)

T. 49N., R. 100W., sec. 35, lots 1,5, NWNE (102.37)

T. 50N., R. 90W., sec. 34, Parcel A. (10.42)

T. 50N., R. 90W., sec. 35, Parcel A (48.12)

T. 50N., R. 93W., sec. 9, lot 6 (39.16)

T. 50N., R. 98W., sec. 7, E2SW, S2SE (160.0)

T. 50N., R. 99W., sec. 15, lot 31 (8.68)

T. 51N., R. 89W., sec. 6, E2 (312.03)

T. 51N., R. 94W., sec. 17, lots 1-6, NESW, SWSW (288.32)

T. 51N., R. 94W., sec. 18, lots 7,8 (72.17)

T. 51N., R. 95W., sec. 27, lot 24 (36.51)

T. 51N., R. 95W., sec. 28, lots 7,12,13,15,20,21,23,27,28, SWNE, NWSE (217.23)

T. 51N., R. 95W., sec. 29, E2NENE, E2NW, W2NE, S2NWNENE, SWNENE (195.00)

T. 51N., R. 96W., sec. 21, lot 33,41,42 (38.07)

T. 51N., R. 97W., sec. 2, lots 42,43 (8.02)

T. 51N., R. 97W., sec. 3, lots 33-36 (10.03)

T. 51N., R. 97W., sec. 9, lots 10,13,14,17,18,19,20; Tr. 47 D, E2SE (242.21)

T. 51N., R. 97W., sec. 10, lot 2, NE, NENW, S2NW, N2SE (356.20)

T. 51N., R. 97W., sec. 11, S2SW, N2NW (80.00)

T. 51N., R. 97W., sec. 14, lots 4,5 (72.89)

T. 52N., R. 88W., sec. 9, SWNW (39.94)

T. 52N., R. 88W., sec. 29, SESE (40.06)

T. 52N., R. 88W., sec. 33, NWSW (40.03)

T. 52N., R. 88W., sec. 32, N2NE, SWNE, N2SE (200.58)

T. 52N., R. 89W., sec. 30, SW (160.00)

T. 52N., R. 89W., sec. 31, N2SE (81.28)

T. 52N., R. 92W., sec. 1, lot 5; Tr. 66 A-D (184.66)

T. 52N., R. 93W., sec. 1, lot 2 (18.71)
386 Worland Approved RMP

Legal Description and (Acreage)1

T. 52N., R. 93W., sec. 31, W2NE, E2NW, W2NESW, (180.00)

T. 53N., R. 91W., sec. 31, SESE (40.00)

T. 53N., R. 91W., sec. 32, SWSW (40.00)

T. 53N., R. 91W., sec. 35, E2NE (80.00)

1Some legal descriptions encompass more land than is intended for possible disposal, resulting in smaller map polygons than the area listed in 

the legal description.

E East 

N North 

R Range 

S South

Sec. Section 

T Township 

Tr. Tract

W West

I.3. Criteria for Retention, Acquisition, or Disposal 

The FLPMA provides for retention of the public lands in federal ownership and management 

by the Bureau of Land Management for multiple uses. The FLPMA and other federal laws, 

executive orders, and policies suggest criteria to use when categorizing public lands for retention 

or disposal, and for identifying acquisition priorities. Disposal by sale, exchange, airport grant, or 

Recreation and Public Purpose (R&PP) patent remains an option if such an action would serve an 

important objective and have a public benefit.

Site-specific environmental review and documentation in conformance with National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including completion of categorical exclusions and plan 

conformance determinations where appropriate, will be accomplished for each proposed land 

program action. Interdisciplinary impact analysis will be tiered within the framework of this and 

other applicable environmental documents. Many of the foregoing provisions of this appendix 

are based upon current policy. Future shifts in policy and national priorities may result in 

modifications of these provisions and changes in addressing priority lands actions. Land tenure 

adjustments must serve the public interest.

The following is suggested criteria to consider in land tenure adjustment proposals, but it is 

not considered all-inclusive. These criteria are meant to guide and streamline consideration of 

land tenure adjustment proposals. 

I.3.1. Criteria for Retention or Acquisition

Acquisition of lands will be considered, if in compliance with the RMP, to facilitate various 

resource management objectives and to acquire lands with high resource values including, but 

not limited to:

● Important, crucial, or critical habitat for fish, wildlife, and plants; 

● Riparian areas, wetlands, and designated floodplains; 

● Parcels that provide access to larger blocks of public land; 

● Lands with special designation or management emphasis; 

● Important cultural resources;

● Recreation opportunities and benefits;

● Mineral development potential; 

● Visual Resource Management Class I and Class II areas;

Appendix I Land Disposal and Acquisition

Criteria for Retention, Acquisition, or Disposal September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 387

● The preferred method for acquisition will be through exchange;

● Acquisitions, including easements, can be completed through exchange, Land and Water 

Conservation Funds purchases, or donations; and

● Acquisitions of private lands will be pursued only with willing landowners. The Bighorn River 

is identified as a priority area for acquisition. 

I.3.1.1. Criteria for Disposal

Current policy prescribes general priorities for land disposal actions that include:

● BLM and other federal jurisdictional transfers;

● Transfers to state and local agencies (e.g., R&PP patents, airport patents);

● State exchanges;

● Private exchanges;

● Sales;

● Desert land entries;

● Parcels difficult or costly to administer;

● Parcels of special importance to local communities; and

● Parcels more suitable for management by another federal or state agency.

Transfer to other public agencies will also be considered if improved management efficiency 

would result. Prior to any disposal, a site-specific analysis must determine that the lands 

considered contain no significant wildlife, recreation, or other resource values the loss of which 

could not be mitigated; have no overriding public values; and represent no substantial public 

investments. Exchange will be the preferred method for disposals. 

I.3.1.1.1. Exchanges

Land exchanges that serve the national interest and are beneficial to BLM programs or that 

support the programs of other agencies (reference Sections 102, 205, and 206 of FLPMA) will be 

promoted. 

● Transfer of leasable minerals out of federal ownership should be avoided except when

non-federal leasable minerals are to be received in return. It is preferable to trade both surface 

and subsurface (mineral) estates.

● Exchanges should involve lands similar in character and/or value. Lands acquired by the BLM 

in an exchange will generally be retained under federal ownership or control, unless there is

a compelling reason for doing so. 

● Exchanges should not be made solely for the purpose of blocking up federal land ownership. 

Sales

Public land sale proposals are the result of a BLM initiative or in response to expressed public 

interest or need. Lands to be considered for disposal, at a minimum, must meet the following 

criteria as outlined in Section 203 of the FLPMA: 

● They are difficult and uneconomical to manage and are not suitable for management by another 

federal department or agency; 

● Disposal would serve important public objectives, including but not limited to, community 

expansion or economic development, that could not be achieved prudently or feasibly on land 

other than public lands and that outweigh other public objectives or values; or 

Appendix I Land Disposal and Acquisition

September 2015 Criteria for Retention or Acquisition
388 Worland Approved RMP

● The tract was acquired for a specific purpose, and the tract is no longer required for that 

purpose or any other federal purpose. 

Generally, exchanges are the preferred method of disposal but sales will be used when: it is 

required by national policy; or it is required to achieve disposal objectives on a timely basis, and 

where disposal through exchange would cause unacceptable delays, or disposal through exchange 

is not feasible. The preferred method of selling public land will be by competitive bidding at 

public auction to qualifying purchasers. However, modified competitive bidding procedures and 

direct sales may be used in certain situations.

Sales and Exchanges Involving Wetlands 

BLM policy is to retain wetlands in federal ownership unless federal, state, public, and private 

institutions and parties have demonstrated the ability to maintain, restore, and protect wetlands 

and riparian habitats on a continuous basis (BLM Manual 6740). Sales and exchanges may 

be authorized when: 

● The tract of public wetlands is either so small or remote that it is uneconomical to manage; or 

● The tract of public wetlands is not suitable for management by another federal agency.

I.3.1.2. Recreation and Public Purposes Lease/Patent

The objective of the R&PP Act is to meet the needs of state and local governmental agencies and 

other qualified organizations for public lands required for recreational and public purposes. Use 

of the R&PP Act protects public values in the land through its reversionary provisions and helps 

qualified entities obtain the more liberal pricing authorized under the R&PP Act. 

Public lands shall be conveyed or leased only for an established or definitely proposed project 

for which there is a reasonable timetable of development and satisfactory development and 

management plans. No more land than is reasonably necessary for the proposed use shall be 

conveyed. 

I.3.1.3. Airport Grants

Grants of public land for airports and airways are available to public agencies through the 

Federal Aviation Administration under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act (reference 43 

Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §2640). Use of this act protects public values in the land 

through its reversionary provisions and helps qualified entities obtain land at no cost (except for 

administrative processing charges) as authorized under this act.

I.3.1.4. Desert Land Entries

The purpose of the Desert Land Law is to permit the reclamation by irrigation of arid public land 

through individual effort and private capital (reference 43 CFR §2520). 

Lands that will not produce any reasonably remunerative agricultural crop by the usual means or 

methods of cultivation, without artificial irrigation, may be considered for a desert land entry. 

The lands must be surveyed, unreserved, unappropriated, non-mineral, non-timber, and incapable 

of producing an agricultural crop without irrigation. The lands must be suitable for agricultural 

purposes and more valuable for that purpose than for any other. Tracts need not be contiguous, 

but shall be sufficiently close to each other to be managed satisfactorily as an economic unit.

Appendix I Land Disposal and Acquisition

Criteria for Retention or Acquisition September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 389

September 2015 Access and Easements

The proposed crop may include any agricultural product to which the land under consideration is 

generally adapted and which would return a fair reward for the expense of producing it. 

All Desert Land Entry applications will be coordinated with the Wyoming State Water Engineer 

and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

I.4. Access and Easements

Access/improved access or easements have been identified in the following areas:

● Shell/Webber Canyon

● Hyattville logging road area

● Tatman/Fenton Pass

● Hamilton Dome

● Upper Owl Creek

● Bighorn River

● Neiber Road (off of South Flat)

● Road 1406 in Sand draw (east of Cedar Mountain WSA)

● South Rim Shell Canyon to South Rim Trapper Canyon (south to Alkali Road) 

● Upper White Creek Drainage

● West of Hamilton Dome between Cottonwood and Owl Creek

● South Fork Owl Creek

● Rock Creek

● South Fork North Fork Owl Creek

● Dutch Nick Flats Road (across Dave Slover property, T. 47N., R. 97W. sec. 23) 

Access for Recreation:

● Upper Grass Creek Area

● Enos Creek

● Upper Cottonwood Creek

● Upper South Fork of Owl Creeks of the Absaroka Mountain Foothills

Foot/horseback Access: 

● Shoshone National Forest

Limited motorized vehicle access on roads in the Red Canyon Creek Area (Thermopolis 

Community Pit).

Access to public lands on the Bighorn and Greybull Rivers: 

● Basin Ridge, Dry Bear Creek, Heron West, Kane East, Kane West, Lovell Draw, Manderson 

Bridge, Perkins Bottom-East, Rairden Bridge, Red Bluff View, Red Rim Meadows-South, 

Sheep Mountain West, South Flat Bridge, Stucco South 

Access in the 15-Mile Badlands Area Includes the following – but not limited to:

● Burlington Pass Road, Fenton Pass Road, Badger Gulch Road, 15-Mile Road, Dorsey Creek 

Road, Murphy Draw Road, Elk Creek Road

Access in the Trapper Creek Recreation Management Zone (RMZ) (includes Shell Canyon to 

Red Gulch Road, to the Bighorn National Forest):

● Horse Mountain, Trapper Creek, White Creek

Appendix I Land Disposal and Acquisition
390 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix I Land Disposal and Acquisition 

Access and Easements September 2015

Access into the Paint Rock RMZ (Alkali Road, Bighorn National Forest, Luman Creek Road 

area to Wyoming Route 31): 

● Laddie Creek and Paint Rock Creek

Access to the Brokenback RMZ (Luman Creek Area, Bighorn National Forest, Highway 16, 

Hyattville-Ten Sleep Road): 

● Laddie Creek, Military Creek, Luman Creek, Dorn Draw Road, additional access into North 

and South Brokenbacks, yearlong public access on North and South Brokenback 

South Bighorns RMZ (Rome Hill Road, Hazelton Road, Upper Nowood, South WFO boundary): 

● Access into upper Nowood area, Otter Creek, Deep Creek, Little Canyon Creek, Public land 

tracts along the Nowood River, Cherry Creek Road/Split Rock Road to Hazelton Road, Lysite 

Mountain, Land parcels within Spring Creek, Spring Creek Road to Rome Hill Road

Access into Canyon Creek RMZ (Highway 16 to Rome Hill Road, Smilo Road to BLM Road 

1417). 
Worland Approved RMP 391

Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

Appendix J. Recreation Management

This appendix displays the details of the management action prescriptions in the Approved 

Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Worland Field 

Office. Recreation management in the Worland Field Office is separated into two types of 

recreation management units; Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA), and Extensive 

Recreation Management Areas (ERMA). These units are delineated and managed accordingly 

to the desired recreational setting character conditions, activities, experiences, and beneficial 

outcomes. Data collected to arrive at allocating these areas as separate recreation management

areas were from intensive public outreach including formal BLM public scoping meetings, on the 

ground visitor surveys, field monitoring and observations, and work with stakeholders such as 

tourism entities and industries, Special Recreation Permit (SRP) permittees, and others who rely 

heavily on BLM-administered public lands. 

SRMAs are administrative units where the existing or proposed recreation opportunities and 

recreation setting characteristics are recognized for their unique value, importance, and/or 

distinctiveness, especially as compared to other areas used for recreation. SRMAs are managed 

to protect and enhance a targeted set of activities, experiences, benefits, and desired recreation 

setting characteristics. SRMAs may be divided into recreation management zones (RMZ) to 

further delineate specific recreation opportunities. Recreation Management is prescribed and 

implemented at the RMZ level. For example; the Badlands SRMA is further divided into three 

RMZs; one managed for recreational touring activities and associated experiences and benefits; 

one managed to enhance back-country types of activities and associated experiences and benefits; 

and one managed for primitive activities, experiences, and benefits. Not all SRMAs within the 

planning area are divided into RMZs because of the commonality of desired settings, activities, 

experiences, and beneficial outcomes. Canyon Creek SRMA and Middle Fork of the Powder 

River SRMA are such examples. Within an SRMA, recreation and visitor services management is 

recognized as the predominant land use planning focus, where specific recreation opportunities 

and recreation setting characteristics are managed and protected on a long-term basis.

ERMAs are administrative units that require specific management consideration in order 

to address recreation use, demand, or recreation and visitor services program investments. 

Management objectives under an ERMA are to support and sustain the principal recreation 

activities and the associated qualities and conditions of the ERMA. Management of ERMA 

areas is commensurate with the management of other resources and resource uses. While

generally unnecessary, ERMAs may be subdivided into recreation management zones (RMZ) 

to ensure recreation and visitor services are managed commensurate with the management of 

other resources and resource uses.

Public lands that are not designated a Recreation Management Area (SRMA or ERMA) are 

managed to meet basic recreation and visitor services and resource stewardship needs. Recreation 

is not emphasized, however recreation activities may occur except on those lands closed to public 

use. The recreation and visitor services are managed to allow recreation uses that are not in 

conflict with the primary uses of these lands. Management actions and allowable use decisions 

will still be necessary to address visitor health and safety, use user conflicts, the type(s), activities 

and locations where special recreation permits would be issued or not issued, and mitigation of 

recreation impacts on cultural and natural resources.

Recreational activities are popular within the planning area for both residents and non-residents. 

Popular recreational activities include but are not limited to camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, 
392 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix J Recreation Management 

Access and Easements September 2015

rock hounding, spelunking, floating and rafting, cross country skiing, wildlife viewing, driving 

for pleasure, all-terrain vehicle (ATV)/four-wheel drive touring, motocross and endurance 

sports, mountain biking, target shooting, and sightseeing. A spike in recreational use on BLMadministered public lands is observed during the summer months, and especially during the 

big game hunting season, which attracts most of the recreational users, not just within the 

region, but visitors from outside of Wyoming. 

Recreational uses inherently contain conflicting uses which compromises health and safety, user 

conflicts, goal interference, un-realization of desired experiences and beneficial outcomes, and 

ultimately natural resource damage. Allocating, or dividing the planning area into sub-recreational 

units, based off of desired settings, activities, experiences, and beneficial outcomes will aid in 

appropriate recreational marketing, niche-matching, diminish user conflicts, and ultimately an 

appreciation of the recreational resources which fosters resource protection. 

Recreation and visitor services scoping meetings were conducted throughout the Bighorn Basin 

Planning Area, resulting in a stand-alone Recreation and Travel Management review report. The 

BLM will use this land use planning process to gather additional data to support managing areas 

as either an SRMA or an ERMA, and to further identify the desired recreation settings character 

conditions, activities, experiences, and beneficial outcomes. Recreation management designation 

or prescriptions may be modified if deemed necessary as a result of public comments. 

The Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan Revision Project Summary of the Recreation 

and Travel Management Workshops reports may be viewed under the Documents Library at: 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/rmps/bighorn/docs.html. 

Table J.1, “Recreation Management Area Prescriptions” (p. 392) further details the allocation of 

recreation management based on desired settings, activities, experiences, and beneficial outcomes.

Table J.1. Recreation Management Area Prescriptions

Absaroka Mountain Foothills SRMA

SRMAs are administrative units where the existing or proposed recreation opportunities and recreation setting 

characteristics are recognized for their unique value, importance, and/or distinctiveness; especially compared to other 

areas used for recreation. For each SRMA: establish objective decisions, describe recreation setting characteristics, 

identify management actions and allowable use decisions and, if necessary, identify implementation decisions.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Briefly describe the rationale for designating the SRMA including the unique value, importance or distinctiveness 

of the area. This documents the rationale for consideration of the SRMA in the planning process and, if selected, 

designation of the SRMA in the record of decision.

This SRMA is necessary to accommodate back to middle country recreational experiences in a recreational resource 

rich environment. The Absaroka Mountain Foothills area is a very popular destination for both local residents and 

out-or-region visitors due to the openness, and naturalness of the area. The area is abundant in a wide variety of 

wildlife including grizzly bears, major access into the Shoshone National Forest and the Washakie Wilderness, and 

dramatic scenery.

SRMA/RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONE (RMZ) OBJECTIVE(S) DECISIONS

SRMAs may be subdivided into RMZs with discrete objectives. SRMA/RMZ objectives must define the specific 

recreation opportunities (i.e., activities, experiences and benefits derived from those experiences) which become the 

focus of Recreation and Visitor Services (R&VS) management.
Worland Approved RMP 393

Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

Objective Statement:

Manage the Absaroka Mountain Foothills as an undeveloped SRMA for nonmotorized recreationists to engage 

in hiking, hunting, wildlife viewing, and nature viewing so that they realize a “moderate” level of the targeted 

experience and benefit outcomes listed below in these Back Country and Middle Country settings.

Activities:

Wildlife viewing, nature viewing, hiking, hunting, horseback riding.

Experiences:

Savoring the total sensory – sight, sound, and smell – experience of a natural landscape. 

Feeling good about solitude, being isolated, and independent.

Learning more about things here.

Benefits:

Greater sensitivity to/awareness of outdoor aesthetics, nature’s art and its elegance. 

Improved mental well-being and physical fitness and health maintenance.

Heightened sense of satisfaction with our area as a place to live. 

Positive contributions to local-regional economic stability.

Maintenance of community’s distinctive recreation/tourism market niche or character.

RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTIC (RSC) DESCRIPTIONS

Describe the physical, social and operational recreation setting qualities to be maintained or enhanced.
394 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix J Recreation Management 

Access and Easements September 2015

Physical

Remoteness:

Back Country.

Implement/maintain road closures to maintain back country settings.

Naturalness:

Back Country.

Manage for back country and middle country settings where natural setting may have subtle modifications that 

would be noticed but not draw the attention of the casual observer wandering through the area.

Facilities and Structures:

Back Country.

Allow for primitive motorized routes and nonmotorized trails to exist. Facilities and structures are rare and often 

accessible via unimproved routes. Horse and hiking trailheads will be constructed at major key access points.

Social

Contacts and Group size:

Back Country.

Usually 3-6 encounters/day off travel routes and campsites, and 7-15 encounters/day on travel routes. Usually 

group size is small.

Operational

Mechanized Use:

Back to Middle Country.

Main access roads are crowned and ditched gravel roads accessed by 2-wheel and 4-wheel drive vehicles, 

ATVs, dirt bikes, or snowmobiles in addition to nonmotorized mechanized use. Roads within the LU Sheep 

Company area are closed, but available for public access during hunting season. Trails for nonmotorized use 

will be constructed so as to access public lands.

Management Controls and Visitor Services:

Middle Country.

Signs present at key access points.

Patrolled periodically by law enforcement officer, and other

BLM employees. Spike in BLM presence during hunting season.

Some use restrictions, limit motorized travel to designated roads and trails, and seasonal closures within the 

LU Sheep Company area.

IMPLEMENTING DECISIONS

Implementation decisions are actions to achieve or implement land use plan decisions. Implementation decisions 

include: management, administration, information and education and monitoring.

Information and Education

Develop interpretive signs at trailheads and parking areas on history, user ethics, geology, and wildlife resources. 

Provide stewardship information to help preserve the special landscape character.

Provide for a map with designated roads and trails, trailheads, camp sites, and information 

regarding the LU Ranch cooperative agreement.

Make available for special outdoor educational programs such as CORE and Take it Outside!

Monitoring

Vehicle counters with routine surveys and observation.

Visitor reports of crowding.

Informal visitor surveys and formal focus groups as funding allow. 

Visitor surveys will be available in register boxes at trailheads.

If trends show that use is over acceptable limits, additional action may be considered, such as encouraging 

use on other trails.

Management
Worland Approved RMP 395

Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

Signs present at key access points, but limited within the SRMA. 

Interpretive signs at trailheads and parking areas.

Develop trailheads for foot and horse travel. Potential locations will include the Blue Creek Trail, and sites along 

the South fork of the Owl Creek. Additional sites may be identified throughout the life of the plan.

Administrative

Visual Resource Management:

Class II.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

All motorized use (including over-snow travel) limited to designated roads and trails.

Lands and Realty:

ROW avoidance area.

Alternative energy avoidance area for realty actions.

Minerals:

Do not pursue withdraw from appropriation under the mining laws for lands within the Absaroka Mountain 

Foothills SRMA.

Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

For lands within the Absaroka Front Management Area, oil and gas leasing is subject to those management actions. 

Outside of the Absaroka Front Management Area, allow surface-disturbing activities in the Absaroka Mountain 

Foothills SRMA such as geophysical exploration, salable minerals exploration and development, and construction 

activities (except those related to development of recreation facilities or wildlife habitat) on a case-by-case basis. 

A CSU will be stipulated within the SRMA.

Special Recreation Permits:

SRPs will be issued as a discretionary action. Issue SRPs for a wide variety of uses, that 

are consistent with resource/program objectives, and within budgetary/workload constraints. 

Cost recovery procedures for issuing SRPs would be applied where appropriate.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on available SRPs may be developed and implemented.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on SRP group numbers may be developed and implemented.

To assist in the determination of whether an organized group activity or event would require an SRP, factors such as 

the following may be considered: resource concerns, user conflicts, need for monitoring, health and safety concerns, 

risk of damage to federal facilities or property. The following guidelines will be used in determining SRP status:

1-15 participants – No SRP required, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed.

16-30 participants – Letter of Agreement, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed. 

Over 30 participants – SRP required.

Agreements:

Maintain cooperative agreement with Wyoming State Land 

Board, Wyoming State Game and Fish, and LU Sheep Company. 

Seek other agreements and partnerships as appropriate.

Partners:

Surrounding private land owners, Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming State Land Board, Wyoming State Trails 

Program, Wyoming Game and Fish, Back Country Horsemen, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, LU Sheep 

Company, and other sports groups.

Other Administration:

Limit the use of signing or other administrative controls unless and until monitoring supports an 

increase in education, signing, or enforcement to meet public recreation objectives for the area. 

Pack goats are prohibited.

Absaroka ERMA

ERMAs are administrative units that require specific management consideration in order to address recreation use, 

demand, or Recreation and Visitor Services (R&VS) program investments. ERMAs are managed to support

and sustain the principal recreation activities and the associated qualities and conditions of the ERMA. ERMA 

management is commensurate and considered in context with the management of other resources and resource uses.
396 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix J Recreation Management 

Access and Easements September 2015

This separate ERMA is necessary to accommodate back to middle country recreational experiences in a recreational 

resource rich environment. The Absaroka Mountain Foothills area is a very popular destination for both local 

residents and out-or-region visitors due to the openness, and naturalness of the area. The area is abundant in a wide 

variety of wildlife including grizzly bears, major access into the Shoshone National Forest and the Washakie 

Wilderness, and dramatic scenery. However, despite the natural recreational resources, access is very challenging 

due to the scattered parcels of BLM-administered public land which invites user conflicts.

ERMA OBJECTIVE(S) DECISION

ERMA objectives must define the recreation activities and the associated qualities and conditions which become the 

focus for R&VS management.

Objective Statement:

Manage the Absaroka Foothills as an ERMA for nonmotorized recreationists to engage in hiking, hunting, wildlife 

viewing, and nature viewing these Back Country and Middle Country settings. Recreation management will focus 

on addressing resource protection, minimizing use and user conflicts, and public health and safety.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS & ALLOWABLE USE DECISIONS

Identify management action and allowable use decisions for R&VS and other programs necessary to: facilitate 

visitor participation in the identified outdoor recreation activities; maintain particular recreation setting 

characteristics; address visitor health and safety, resource protection, and use and user conflicts; and, address the 

type(s), activities, and locations where special recreation permits would or would not be issued.

Physical

Remoteness:

Middle Country.

Implement a Travel Management Plan so as to maintain the back to middle country settings. Maintain Back Country 

settings within the South Owl Creek Canyon.

Naturalness:

Back Country.

Manage for back country settings where natural setting may have subtle modifications that would be noticed but not 

draw the attention of the casual observer wandering through the area.

Facilities and Structures:

Middle Country.

Allow for primitive motorized routes and nonmotorized trails to exist. Facilities and structures are rare and 

often accessible via unimproved routes. Horse and hiking trailheads will be constructed at major key access 

points. Maintain primitive setting within the South Owl Creek canyons where trails may exist but do not exceed 

standard to carry expected use. Facilities and structures are extremely rare.

Social

Contacts and Group size:

Back Country.

Usually 3-6 encounters/day off travel routes and campsites, and 7-15 encounters/day on travel routes. Usually 

group size is small.

Operational

Mechanized Use:

Back to Middle Country.

Main access roads are crowned and ditched gravel roads accessed by 2-wheel and 4-wheel drive vehicles, 

ATVs, dirt bikes, or snowmobiles in addition to nonmotorized mechanized use. Trails for nonmotorized use 

will be constructed so as to access public lands.

Management Controls and Visitor Services:

Middle Country.

Signs present at key access points.

Patrolled periodically by law enforcement officer, and other

BLM employees. Spike in BLM presence during hunting season. 

Some use restrictions, limit motorized travel to designated roads and trails.

IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS
Worland Approved RMP 397

Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

Implementation decisions are actions to achieve or implement land use plan decisions. Implementation decisions 

include: management, administration, information and education and monitoring.

Information and Education

Use information and interpretation to lessen visitor conflicts, resource impacts, and to increase 

visitor awareness of wildlife habitat and wetland management.

Provide stewardship information to help preserve the special landscape character.

Provide for a map with designated roads and trails, easements, trailheads, and surface ownership. 

Make available for special outdoor educational programs such as CORE and Take it Outside!

Monitoring

Monitor visitor use, visitor safety, and resource conditions through; BLM staff, volunteers 

and recreation-tourism partnerships (e.g., towns, outfitters, recreation organizations, etc.). 

Vehicle counters with routine surveys and observation.

Visitor reports of crowding.

If trends show that use is over acceptable limits, additional action may be considered, such as encouraging 

use on other trails.

Management

Signs present at key access points, but limited within the ERMA. 

Interpretive signs at trailheads and parking areas.

Develop recreational facilities so as to address resource protection, use and user conflicts, and public health and 

safety.

Administrative
398 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix J Recreation Management 

Access and Easements September 2015

Visual Resource Management:

Manage VRM consistent with other resource objectives.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

All motorized use (including over-snow travel) limited to designated roads and trails.

Lands and Realty:

ROW avoidance area.

Alternative energy avoidance area for realty actions.

Minerals:

Do not pursue withdraw from appropriation under the mining laws for lands within the Absaroka ERMA.

Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

For lands within the Absaroka Front Management Area, oil and gas leasing is subject to those management actions.

Outside of the Absaroka Front Management Area, allow surface-disturbing activities in the Absaroka ERMA 

such as geophysical exploration, salable minerals exploration and development, and construction activities 

(except those related to development of recreation facilities or wildlife habitat) on a case-by-case basis.

A CSU will be stipulated within the ERMA.

Special Recreation Permits:

SRPs will be issued as a discretionary action. Issue SRPs for a wide variety of uses, that 

are consistent with resource/program objectives, and within budgetary/workload constraints. 

Cost recovery procedures for issuing SRPs would be applied where appropriate.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on available SRPs may be developed and implemented.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on SRP group numbers may be developed and implemented.

To assist in the determination of whether an organized group activity or event would require an SRP, factors such as 

the following may be considered: resource concerns, user conflicts, need for monitoring, health and safety concerns, 

risk of damage to federal facilities or property. The following guidelines will be used in determining SRP status:

1-15 participants – No SRP required, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed.

16-30 participants – Letter of Agreement, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed. 

Over 30 participants – SRP required.

Partners:

Surrounding private land owners, Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming State Land Board, Wyoming State 

Trails Program, Wyoming Game and Fish, Back Country Horsemen, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and 

other sports groups and stakeholders.

Other Administration:

Limit the use of signing or other administrative controls unless and until monitoring supports an 

increase in education, signing, or enforcement to meet public recreation objectives for the area. 

Pack goats are prohibited.

Bighorn River ERMA

ERMAs are administrative units that require specific management consideration in order to address recreation use, 

demand, or Recreation and Visitor Services (R&VS) program investments. ERMAs are managed to support

and sustain the principal recreation activities and the associated qualities and conditions of the ERMA. ERMA 

management is commensurate and considered in context with the management of other resources and resource uses.

The Bighorn River has been a very popular area known for river recreation such as boating/floating, diverse 

fishery, hunting, and even motor boating. The southern river segments (from Wedding of the Waters to Skelton 

Bridge) are managed as a blue-ribbon fishery with many Wyoming Game and Fish managed put-in and take-outs. 

The river contains BLM-administered islands, as well as other scattered tracts of land that provide forriver access. 

Recently, the BLM acquired the Eggert tract which has enhanced user access to the river, as well as extend float 

trips from boaters putting-in upstream of the tract. The Bighorn River tracts are currently managed under the 

Bighorn River Habitat Management Plan and Recreation Area Management Plan (2/23/1989). The HMP/RAMP 

prescribes management from other resources such as wildlife, vegetation, fisheries, and invasive and noxious 

weed management. Most river access is via the Wyoming Game and Fish access points. Readily accessible

BLM-administered public lands are located outside of the “blue-ribbon” section of the Bighorn River, and the tracts 

are scattered. Primary objectives for these tracts are to enhance wildlife habitat.

ERMA OBJECTIVE(S) DECISION
Worland Approved RMP 399

Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

ERMA objectives must define the recreation activities and the associated qualities and conditions which become the 

focus for R&VS management.

Objective Statement:

Manage access to the Bighorn River ERMA for river recreation use for visitors to engage in sightseeing, hunting, 

photography, fishing, and floating. Manage recreation use for enhanced recreational opportunities, as well as to 

manage for resource protection, and to minimize use and user conflicts, and public health and safety consistent 

with the HMP/RAMP.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS & ALLOWABLE USE DECISIONS

Identify management action and allowable use decisions for R&VS and other programs necessary to: facilitate 

visitor participation in the identified outdoor recreation activities; maintain particular recreation setting 

characteristics; address visitor health and safety, resource protection, and use and user conflicts; and, address the 

type(s), activities, and locations where special recreation permits would or would not be issued.

Physical

Remoteness:

Front Country.

The tracts provide for main access points to the Bighorn River, which are on or near improved county roads, but at 

least 0.5 mile from any highway.

Naturalness:

Back Country.

Natural setting may have subtle modifications but not draw the attention of the casual observer wandering through 

the area. Some tracts along the Bighorn River (Durkee Boat Ramp) are Front Country due to adjacent land uses.

Facilities and Structures:

Front Country.

Primitive and improved routes/trails may exist. Facilities and structures are scattered. 

Social

Contacts and Group Size:

Back Country settings.

Most of the Bighorn River Tracts are usually up to 6 encounters/day off travel routes, and up to 15 encounters/day 

on travel routes. Usually group size is small. Most of the time, social settings will reflect primitive definition.

Visitor encounters can be high during peak use periods at the boat ramps located in the southern sections of the 

Bighorn River (Wedding of the Waters to Skelton Bridge). Encounters diminish the further downstream (north).

Operational

Mechanized Use:

Front Country.

Manage the majority of the river tracts for a Front Country setting where 2-wheel drive vehicles predominant, 

but also 4-wheel drive vehicles and nonmotorized mechanized use.

Management Controls and Visitor Services:

Back Country.

On site controls and services are present but subtle.

Personnel periodic. Minimum amount necessary to achieve planning objectives.

IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

Implementation decisions are actions to achieve or implement land use plan decisions. Implementation decisions 

include: management, administration, information and education and monitoring.

Information and Education
400 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix J Recreation Management 

Access and Easements September 2015

Develop interpretive signs at trailheads and parking areas on user ethics, nonnative invasive weed species found 

within the area, history, hunting, and other current resource programs. Use information and interpretation to lessen 

visitor conflicts, resource impacts, and to increase visitor awareness of wildlife habitat and wetland management. 

Provide stewardship information to help preserve the special landscape character.

Provide for a map with designated roads, boat ramps, hazards, and BLM-administered public land tracts. 

Make available for special outdoor educational programs such as CORE and Take it Outside!

Work closely with the gateway communities of Thermopolis, Worland, Basin, and Greybull, and other partners 

in the region in marketing and outreach.

Monitoring

Vehicle counters at access points with routine surveys and observation.

Solicit partnerships and cooperative agreements to: Monitor recreation setting condition through on-site 

patrols. Informal visitor surveys and formal focus groups as funding allow.

Visitor reports of crowding. If trends show that use is over acceptable limits, additional action may be considered, 

such as encouraging use on other river segments, institute fee areas, or limit river use.

Management

Continue to provide for a day use experience and associated facilities with an emphasis on 

maintaining a middle country recreation setting.

Continue to provide opportunities that contribute to meeting recreation demand while protecting resources. 

Provide and maintain visitor facilities, services, signing, and programs.

Administrative

Visual Resource Management:

Manage visual resources consistent with adjacent resource prescriptions.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

Manage trails and travel management consistent with adjacent resource prescriptions.

Lands and Realty:

Lands within the Bighorn River ERMA are ROW avoidance areas. ROWs are collocated whenever possible. 

The Bighorn River ERMA is an alternative energy avoidance area for realty actions (i.e., wind, solar, etc.). 

Pursue legal and physical access to maximize recreational opportunities.

Minerals:

Do not pursue withdraw from appropriation under the mining laws for lands within the Bighorn River ERMA.

Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

Apply an NSO restriction on lands within the Bighorn River ERMA.

Avoid surface-disturbing activities within the Bighorn River ERMA such as geophysical exploration (except casual 

use), salable minerals exploration and development, and construction activities (except those related to development 

of recreation facilities or wildlife habitat) on a case-by-case basis.

Special Recreation Permits:

SRPs will be issued as a discretionary action. Issue SRPs for a wide variety of uses, that 

are consistent with resource/program objectives, and within budgetary/workload constraints. 

Cost recovery procedures for issuing SRPs would be applied where appropriate.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on available SRPs may be developed and implemented.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on SRP group numbers may be developed and implemented.

To assist in the determination of whether an organized group activity or event would require an SRP, factors such as 

the following may be considered: resource concerns, user conflicts, need for monitoring, health and safety concerns, 

risk of damage to federal facilities or property. The following guidelines will be used in determining SRP status:

1-15 participants – No SRP required, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed.

16-30 participants – Letter of Agreement, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed. 

Over 30 participants – SRP required.

Partners:

Communities of Thermopolis, Worland, Basin, and Greybull, Wyoming Game and Fish, and other interested groups.

Other Administration:

Limit the use of signing or other administrative controls unless and until monitoring supports an increase in 

education, signing, or enforcement to meet public recreation objectives for the area.
Worland Approved RMP 401

Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

Badlands SRMA

SRMAs are administrative units where the existing or proposed recreation opportunities and recreation setting 

characteristics are recognized for their unique value, importance, and/or distinctiveness; especially compared to other 

areas used for recreation. For each SRMA: establish objective decisions, describe recreation setting characteristics, 

identify management actions and allowable use decisions and, if necessary, identify implementation decisions.

Tour de Badlands RMZ

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Briefly describe the rationale for designating the SRMA including the unique value, importance or distinctiveness 

of the area. This documents the rationale for consideration of the SRMA in the planning process and, if selected, 

designation of the SRMA in the record of decision.

This RMZ is contained within the Badlands SRMA, which is popular for motorized touring to explore the scenic 

desert basin. Natural recreational resources within the SRMA contain wildlife, open spaces, wild horses, and an 

erratic landscape which offers outstanding scenic quality.

SRMA/RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONE (RMZ) OBJECTIVE(S) DECISIONS

SRMAs may be subdivided into RMZs with discrete objectives. SRMA/RMZ objectives must define the specific 

recreation opportunities (i.e., activities, experiences and benefits derived from those experiences) which become the 

focus of Recreation and Visitor Services (R&VS) management.

Objective Statement:

Manage the Tour de Badlands RMZ for motorized recreationists to engage in motorized sightseeing touring, 

hunting, wildlife viewing, and nature viewing so that affected community residents report realizing a “moderate” 

level of recreation experience and benefit outcomes in these Middle Country and Front Country settings.

Activities:

Driving for pleasure, hunting, wildlife viewing, nature viewing, sightseeing.

Experiences:

Enjoy having easy access to natural landscapes.

Enjoy having access to close-to-home outdoor amenities.

Savoring the total sensory – sight, sound, and smell – experience of a natural landscape.

Benefits:

Improved mental well-being.

Greater sensitivity to/awareness of outdoor aesthetics, nature’s art and its elegance. 

Heightened sense of satisfaction with our area as a place to live.

Greater community involvement in recreation and other land use decisions. 

Greater family bonding.

Positive contributions to local-regional economic stability. 

Increased desirability as a place to live or retire.

RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTIC (RSC) DESCRIPTIONS

Describe the physical, social and operational recreation setting qualities to be maintained or enhanced.
402 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix J Recreation Management 

Access and Easements September 2015

Physical

Remoteness:

Middle/Front Country.

On or near 4-wheeled drive and improved roads. Maintain main access roads through the area for 2-wheel 

and 4-wheel drive access into the Badlands area.

Naturalness:

Middle Country.

Natural setting may have moderately dominant alterations but would not draw the attention of the observers on trails 

and primitive roads within the area.

Facilities and Structures:

Front Country.

Primitive and improved routes/trails may exist. Facilities and structures are scattered. 

Social

Contacts and Group Size:

Back Country.

Usually 3-6 encounters/day off travel routes and campsites, and 7-15 encounters/day on travel routes. Usually 

group size is small.

Operational

Mechanized Use:

Front Country.

2-wheel drive vehicles predominant, but also 4-wheel drive vehicles and 

nonmotorized mechanized use. On site controls and services present but subtle.

Management Controls and Visitor Services:

Middle Country.

On site controls and services present but subtle. Signs present at key access points. Patrolled periodically by law 

enforcement officer, and other BLM employees. Spike in BLM monitoring presence during hunting season.

Some use restrictions, limit motorized travel to designated roads and trails.

IMPLEMENTING DECISIONS

Implementation decisions are actions to achieve or implement land use plan decisions. Implementation decisions 

include: management, administration, information and education and monitoring.

Information and Education

Develop interpretive signs at trailheads and parking areas on history, user ethics, geology, wildlife, and wild horses resources.

Provide stewardship information to help preserve the special landscape character.

Provide for a map with designated roads and trails, trailheads, camp sites, and information 

regarding the wild horse program, and surrounding WSAs.

Make available for special outdoor educational programs such as CORE and Take it Outside! 

Maintain a strong sign program so as to keep the access routes within the RMZ well marked.

Monitoring

Vehicle counters with routine surveys and observation.

Visitor reports of crowding.

Informal visitor surveys and formal focus groups as funding allow.

If trends show that use is over acceptable limits, additional action may be considered, such as encouraging 

use on other trails.

Management
Worland Approved RMP 403

Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

Develop one or more scenic interpretive sites and driving loops for motorized and mechanized travel in the Tour de Badlands area within the Badlands SRMA to highlight the area's 

scenic values. These could involve the Fifteenmile Creek and Dorsey Creek roads and The 

Murphy Draw Road with overlooks at the Painted Canyon of Elk Creek and at Bobcat Draw. 

Identify routes to close and reclaim, construct new routes, and identify routes to remain open. 

Develop trailheads for ATV unloading stations.

Interpretive signs at trailheads and parking areas.

Additional sites may be identified throughout the life of the plan. 

Signs present at key access points, but limited within the RMZ.

Administrative

Visual Resource Management:

Manage VRM consistent with other resource management objectives.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

Limited to designated roads and trails.

Lands and Realty:

ROW avoidance area.

Alternative energy avoidance area for realty actions.

Minerals:

Do not pursue withdraw from appropriation under the mining laws

Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

for lands within the Tour de Badlands area.

Review mineral leases on a case-by-case basis and apply mitigation through activity level planning.

Allow surface-disturbing activities in the Tour de Badlands RMZ such as geophysical exploration (except 

casual use), saleable minerals exploration and development, and construction activities (except those related to 

development of recreation facilities or wildlife habitat) on a case-by-case basis.

Special Recreation Permits:

SRPs will be issued as a discretionary action. Issue SRPs for a wide variety of uses, that 

are consistent with resource/program objectives, and within budgetary/workload constraints. 

Cost recovery procedures for issuing SRPs would be applied where appropriate.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on available SRPs may be developed and implemented.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on SRP group numbers may be developed and implemented.

To assist in the determination of whether an organized group activity or event would require an SRP, factors such as 

the following may be considered: resource concerns, user conflicts, need for monitoring, health and safety concerns, 

risk of damage to federal facilities or property. The following guidelines will be used in determining SRP status:

1-15 participants – No SRP required, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed.

16-30 participants – Letter of Agreement, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed. 

Over 30 participants – SRP required.

Partners:

Private landowners, Wyoming Department of Transportation, Wyoming State Land Board, Wyoming State 

Trails Program, Wyoming Game and Fish, Back Country Horsemen, IMBA, community ATV organizations, and 

other clubs/organizations.

Other Administration:

Limit the use of signing or other administrative controls unless and until monitoring supports an increase in 

education, signing, or enforcement to meet public recreation objectives for the area.

Badlands SRMA

SRMAs are administrative units where the existing or proposed recreation opportunities and recreation setting 

characteristics are recognized for their unique value, importance, and/or distinctiveness; especially compared to other 

areas used for recreation. For each SRMA: establish objective decisions, describe recreation setting characteristics,

identify management actions and allowable use decisions and, if necessary, identify implementation decisions.

Wild Badlands RMZ

SUPPORTING INFORMATION
404 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix J Recreation Management 

Access and Easements September 2015

Briefly describe the rationale for designating the SRMA including the unique value, importance or distinctiveness 

of the area. This documents the rationale for consideration of the SRMA in the planning process and, if selected, 

designation of the SRMA in the record of decision.

This RMZ is within the Badlands SRMA. This RMZ is rich in natural recreational resources such as erratic and 

dramatic landscapes, management to maintain the primitive to semi-primitive setting characteristics, wilderness 

characteristics, three WSAs, wildlife, and wild horses which caters to primitive and semi-primitive recreational 

experiences.

SRMA/RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONE (RMZ) OBJECTIVE(S) DECISIONS

SRMAs may be subdivided into RMZs with discrete objectives. SRMA/RMZ objectives must define the specific 

recreation opportunities (i.e., activities, experiences and benefits derived from those experiences) which become the 

focus of Recreation and Visitor Services (R&VS) management.

Objective Statement:

Manage the Wild Badlands RMZ exclusively for nonmotorized recreationists to engage in hiking, hunting, wildlife 

viewing, and nature viewing so that affected community residents report realizing a “moderate” level of recreation 

experience and benefit outcomes in these Back Country settings.

Activities:

Hiking, hunting, wildlife viewing, nature viewing, sightseeing.

Experiences:

Savoring the total sensory – sight, sound, and smell – experience of a natural landscape. 

Feeling good about solitude, being isolated, and independent.

Enjoy having easy access to natural landscapes.

Benefits:

Greater sensitivity to/awareness of outdoor aesthetics, nature’s art and its elegance. 

Closer relationship with the natural world.

Improved mental well-being.

Heightened sense of satisfaction with our area as a place to live.

Greater community involvement in recreation and other land use decisions. 

Increased desirability as a place to live or retire.

RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTIC (RSC) DESCRIPTIONS

Describe the physical, social and operational recreation setting qualities to be maintained or enhanced.
Worland Approved RMP 405

Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

Physical

Remoteness:

Back Country.

Maintain road closures to maintain back country settings.

Naturalness:

Back Country.

Manage the natural setting so that they may have subtle modifications that would be noticed but not draw the 

attention of the casual observer wandering through the area.

Facilities and Structures:

Primitive.

Trails may exist but do not exceed standard to carry expected use. Facilities and structures are extremely rare and 

developed only in occasions where necessary to protect the back country settings.

Social

Contacts and Group Size:

Back Country.

Manage for a season average of fewer than 6 encounters/day on and off travel routes. 

Operational

Mechanized Use:

Primitive.

Non-motorized and non-mechanized (foot and horseback) travel only.

Management Controls and Visitor Services:

Back Country.

On site controls and services present at key access points, but subtle. 

Patrolled periodically by law enforcement officer, and other BLM 

employees. Spike in BLM monitoring presence during hunting season.

Minimum amount of BLM facilitating outputs necessary to achieve planning objectives.

IMPLEMENTING DECISIONS

Implementation decisions are actions to achieve or implement land use plan decisions. Implementation decisions 

include: management, administration, information and education and monitoring.

Information and Education

Develop educational signs at trailheads and parking areas on user ethics, geology, and wilderness. 

Provide stewardship information to help preserve the special landscape character.

Provide for a map with WSAs, access points, information regarding the wilderness program, 

and outdoor ethics messages such as Leave No Trace!

Make available for special outdoor educational programs such as CORE and Take it Outside!

Monitoring

Vehicle counters with surveys and observation along perimeter of WSAs. 

Visitor reports of crowding.

Informal visitor surveys and formal focus groups as funding allow.

If trends show that use is over acceptable limits, additional action may be considered, such as encouraging 

use on other trails.

Management

Identify routes to close and reclaim. Modify identified routes into nonmotorized and non-mechanized trails. 

Develop primitive trailheads at key access points.

Install kiosks and signs at trailheads and parking areas.

Signs present at key access points, but very limited within the RMZ.

Administrative
406 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix J Recreation Management 

Access and Easements September 2015

Visual Resource Management:

Class I.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

Closed to motorized and non-mechanized travel.

Lands and Realty:

ROW avoidance area.

Alternative energy exclusion area for realty actions.

Minerals, Oil and Gas Leasing, and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

Mineral uses, Oil and Gas and Geothermal leasing, exploration, and development will be guided by the 

Interim Management Policy for Lands under Wilderness Review (IMP).

Special Recreation Permits:

SRPs will be issued as a discretionary action. Issue SRPs for a wide variety of uses, that 

are consistent with resource/program objectives, and within budgetary/workload constraints. 

Cost recovery procedures for issuing SRPs would be applied where appropriate.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on available SRPs may be developed and implemented.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on SRP group numbers may be developed and implemented.

To assist in the determination of whether an organized group activity or event would require an SRP, factors such as 

the following may be considered: resource concerns, user conflicts, need for monitoring, health and safety concerns, 

risk of damage to federal facilities or property. The following guidelines will be used in determining SRP status:

1-15 participants – No SRP required, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed.

16-30 participants – Letter of Agreement, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed. 

Over 30 participants – SRP required.

Partners:

Including, but not limited to: Wyoming State Land Board, Wyoming State Trails Program, Wyoming Game and 

Fish, Back Country Horsemen, Sierra Club, Wyoming Wilderness Association.

Other Administration:

Limit the use of signing or other administrative controls unless and until monitoring supports an increase in 

education, signing, or enforcement to meet public recreation objectives for the area.

Badlands SRMA

SRMAs are administrative units where the existing or proposed recreation opportunities and recreation setting 

characteristics are recognized for their unique value, importance, and/or distinctiveness; especially compared to other 

areas used for recreation. For each SRMA: establish objective decisions, describe recreation setting characteristics, 

identify management actions and allowable use decisions and, if necessary, identify implementation decisions.

Tatman Mountain RMZ

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Briefly describe the rationale for designating the SRMA including the unique value, importance or distinctiveness 

of the area. This documents the rationale for consideration of the SRMA in the planning process and, if selected, 

designation of the SRMA in the record of decision.

This RMZ is within the Badlands SRMA. Much like the Wild Badlands RMZ, this RMZ is rich in natural 

recreational resources such as erratic and dramatic landscapes, dominant mountainous environment, and current 

management to maintain the primitive to semi-primitive setting characteristics, wildlife, and wild horses which 

caters to primitive and semi-primitive recreational experiences. The RMZ is located to the west of Sheep Mountain 

WSA and provides for exceptional wildlife resource opportunities, access, motorized and primitive forms of 

touring, and high scenic quality.

SRMA/RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONE (RMZ) OBJECTIVE(S) DECISIONS

SRMAs may be subdivided into RMZs with discrete objectives. SRMA/RMZ objectives must define the specific 

recreation opportunities (i.e., activities, experiences and benefits derived from those experiences) which become the 

focus of Recreation and Visitor Services (R&VS) management.
Worland Approved RMP 407

Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

Objective Statement:

Manage the Tatman Mountain RMZ for nonmotorized recreationists to engage in muscle-powered activities such as 

hiking, hunting, mountain biking, and horseback riding so that affected community residents report realizing a 

“moderate” level of recreation experience and benefit outcomes in these Back country to Middle country settings.

Activities:

Hiking, hunting, mountain biking, wildlife viewing, nature viewing, sightseeing.

Experiences:

Savoring the total sensory – sight, sound, and smell – experience of a natural landscape. 

Feeling good about solitude, being isolated, and independent.

Enjoy having easy access to natural landscapes.

Benefits:

Greater sensitivity to/awareness of outdoor aesthetics, nature’s art and its elegance. 

Closer relationship with the natural world.

Improved mental well-being.

Heightened sense of satisfaction with our area as a place to live.

Greater community involvement in recreation and other land use decisions. 

Increased desirability as a place to live or retire.

RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTIC (RSC) DESCRIPTIONS

Describe the physical, social and operational recreation setting qualities to be maintained or enhanced.

Physical

Remoteness:

Middle Country.

On or near 4-wheel drive roads, but at least 0.5 mile from all improved roads, though they may be in sight.

Naturalness:

Back Country.

Manage the natural setting so that they may have subtle modifications that would be noticed but not draw the 

attention of the casual observer wandering through the area.

Facilities and Structures:

Back Country.

Trails may exist but do not exceed standard to carry expected use.

Facilities and structures are extremely rare and developed only in occasions where necessary to protect 

the back country settings.

Social

Contacts and Group Size:

Back Country.

Manage for a season average of fewer than 6 encounters/day on and off travel routes. In issuing SRPs, 

allow for a group size less than 5 participants.

Operational

Mechanized Use:

Middle/Back Country.

Middle country for the access routes acting as main portals into the RMZ. Manage for back country settings 

(nonmotorized travel) outside of those corridors.

Management Controls and Visitor Services:

Middle Country.

On site controls and services present at key access points, but subtle. 

Patrolled periodically by law enforcement officer, and other BLM 

employees. Spike in BLM monitoring presence during hunting season.

Minimum amount of BLM facilitating outputs necessary to achieve planning objectives.
408 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix J Recreation Management 

Access and Easements September 2015

IMPLEMENTING DECISIONS

Implementation decisions are actions to achieve or implement land use plan decisions. Implementation decisions 

include: management, administration, information and education and monitoring.

Information and Education

Develop educational signs at trailheads and parking areas on user ethics, geology, wild 

horses, and wilderness characteristics.

Provide stewardship information to help preserve the special landscape character.

Provide for a map with designated routes and trails, key access points, private lands, and outdoor 

ethics messages such as Tread Lightly and Leave No Trace!

Make available for special outdoor educational programs such as CORE and Take it Outside!

Monitoring

Vehicle counters with surveys and observation. 

Visitor reports of crowding.

Informal visitor surveys and formal focus groups as funding allow.

If trends show that use is over acceptable limits, additional action may be considered, such as encouraging 

use on other trails.

Management

Identify routes to maintain as open to motorized use. Reclaim routes identified as closed. Maintain 

open routes so as to sustain motorized use. Modify identified closed routes into nonmotorized and 

mechanized trails for muscle-powered recreational activities.

Develop primitive trailheads at key access points. 

Install kiosks and signs at trailheads and parking areas.

Signs present at key access points, but very limited within the RMZ.

Administrative
Worland Approved RMP 409

Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

Visual Resource Management:

Manage VRM consistent with other resource management objectives.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

Motorized use is limited to designated roads and trails.

Lands and Realty:

ROW avoidance area.

Alternative energy avoidance area for realty actions.

Acquire legal and physical access to maximize recreational opportunities.

Minerals:

Do not pursue withdraw from appropriation under the mining laws for lands within the Tatman Mountain RMZ.

Minerals, Oil and Gas Leasing, and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

A CSU is stipulated within this zone.

Allow surface-disturbing activities such as geophysical exploration (except casual use), salable

minerals exploration and development, and construction activities (except those related to development of recreation 

facilities or wildlife habitat) on a case-by-case basis.

Special Recreation Permits:

SRPs will be issued as a discretionary action. Issue SRPs for a wide variety of uses, that 

are consistent with resource/program objectives, and within budgetary/workload constraints. 

Cost recovery procedures for issuing SRPs would be applied where appropriate.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on available SRPs may be developed and implemented.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on SRP group numbers may be developed and implemented.

To assist in the determination of whether an organized group activity or event would require an SRP, factors such as 

the following may be considered: resource concerns, user conflicts, need for monitoring, health and safety concerns, 

risk of damage to federal facilities or property. The following guidelines will be used in determining SRP status:

1-15 participants – No SRP required, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed.

16-30 participants – Letter of Agreement, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed. 

Over 30 participants – SRP required.

Partners:

Including, but not limited to: Wyoming State Land Board, Wyoming State Trails Program, Wyoming Game and 

Fish, Back Country Horsemen, Sierra Club, Wyoming Wilderness Association.

Other Administration:

Limit the use of signing or other administrative controls unless and until monitoring supports an increase in 

education, signing, or enforcement to meet public recreation objectives for the area.

West Slope of the Bighorns SRMA

SRMAs are administrative units where the existing or proposed recreation opportunities and recreation setting 

characteristics are recognized for their unique value, importance, and/or distinctiveness; especially compared to other 

areas used for recreation. For each SRMA: establish objective decisions, describe recreation setting characteristics, 

identify management actions and allowable use decisions and, if necessary, identify implementation decisions.

Canyons RMZ

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Briefly describe the rationale for designating the SRMA including the unique value, importance or distinctiveness 

of the area. This documents the rationale for consideration of the SRMA in the planning process and, if selected, 

designation of the SRMA in the record of decision.

This RMZ is contained within the West Slope of the Bighorns SRMA. The Canyon RMZ attracts visitors from both 

the surrounding communities to outside the region. The Medicine Lodge State Park attracts many visitors who 

enjoy exploring the slope of the Bighorns. Such resources include the Medicine Lodge and Dry Medicine Lodge 

canyons, Paint Rock Canyon, Trapper Creek and White Creek canyons, Spanish Point ACEC, Red Gulch Dinosaur 

Tracksite and the Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite ACEC, the Hyattville Logging Road, the Red Gulch/Alkali Road 

Backcountry Byway, prominent wildlife habitat management areas, abundant wildlife and fishing, significant cave 

and karst resources, highly rated scenic quality and access into the Bighorn National Forest. These resources 

provide for excellent primitive nonmotorized recreation to motorized (touring) recreation.

SRMA/RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONE (RMZ) OBJECTIVE(S) DECISIONS
410 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix J Recreation Management 

Access and Easements September 2015

SRMAs may be subdivided into RMZs with discrete objectives. SRMA/RMZ objectives must define the specific 

recreation opportunities (i.e., activities, experiences and benefits derived from those experiences) which become the 

focus of Recreation and Visitor Services (R&VS) management.

Objective Statement:

Manage the Canyons RMZ as a zone within the West Slope of the Bighorns SRMA for motorized and nonmotorized 

recreationists to engage in hiking, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, nature viewing, and driving for pleasure

so that they report realizing a “moderate” level of recreation experience and benefit outcomes listed below in 

these Back Country and Middle Country settings.

Activities:

Hunting, wildlife viewing, fishing, nature viewing, hiking, photography, sightseeing, spelunking.

Experiences:

Savoring the total sensory – sight, sound, and smell – experience of a natural landscape. 

Developing skills and abilities.

Enjoy going exploring on my/our own.

Enjoy having easy access to natural landscapes. 

Enjoying the closeness of family.

Benefits:

Improved mental well-being and physical fitness and health maintenance.

Greater sensitivity to/awareness of outdoor aesthetics, nature’s art and its elegance. 

Increased appreciation of area’s cultural history.

Heightened sense of satisfaction with our area as a place to live. 

Greater family bonding.

Positive contributions to local-regional economic stability.

Maintenance of community’s distinctive recreation/tourism market niche or character. 

Increased desirability as a place to live or retire.

RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTIC (RSC) DESCRIPTIONS

Describe the physical, social and operational recreation setting qualities to be maintained or enhanced.
Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

Worland Approved RMP 411

Physical

Remoteness:

Back to Middle Country.

On land surrounding the Red Gulch/Alkali Road National Back Country Byway, Cold Springs Road, Hyattville 

Logging Road, and the Black Butte road, maintain middle country settings on or near 4-wheel drive roads, but at 

least 0.5 mile from all improved roads, though they may be in sight. Maintain back country settings within

the WSAs and canyons.

Naturalness:

Middle/Back Country.

Natural setting may have subtle modifications that would be noticed but not draw the attention of the casual 

observer wandering through the area and primitive motorized routes and nonmotorized trails may exist. Maintain 

primitive naturalness settings for the WSAs and canyons where lands are essentially an unmodified natural 

environment. Evidence of humans is unnoticed by an observer wandering through the area.

Facilities and Structures:

Primitive/Back Country.

Facilities and structures are rare and often accessible via unimproved routes. Maintain primitive settingsin the WSAs 

where trails may exist but do not exceed standard to carry expected use. Facilities and structures are extremely rare.

Social

Contacts and Group Size:

Back Country.

Usually 3-6 encounters/day off travel routes and campsites, and 7-15 encounters/day on travel routes for the 

majority of the zone. Usually group size is small. Areas such as Dry Medicine Lodge Canyon, Cold Springs Road, 

Hyattville Logging Road, and Paint Rock Canyon is middle country where 7-14 encounters/day off travel routes, 

and 15-29 encounters/day en route. Usually group size is small to moderate.

Operational

Mechanized Use:

Middle/Back Country.

Maintain Middle country settings along the Cold Springs Road, Black Butte Road, Hyattville Logging Road, and 

the Red Gulch/Alkali Road National Back Country Byway where 4-wheel drive vehicles, ATVs, dirt bikes, or 

snowmobiles in addition to nonmotorized mechanized use are acceptable. Maintain Back Country settings within the 

Spanish Point ACEC where mountain bikes perhaps other mechanized use is allowed, but all travel is nonmotorized.

Management Controls and Visitor Services:

Middle/Front Country.

Signs present at key access points.

Patrolled periodically by law enforcement officer, and other BLM employees. Spike 

in BLM presence during hunting season.

Some use restrictions, limit motorized travel to designated roads and trails outside the Spanish Point ACEC. 

Motorized use within the ACEC is strictly prohibited.

IMPLEMENTING DECISIONS

Implementation decisions are actions to achieve or implement land use plan decisions. Implementation decisions 

include: management, administration, information and education and monitoring.

Information and Education

Utilize adaptive management techniques to provide identified recreation opportunities (activities, experiences, and benefits) and reach desired future setting conditions.

Develop interpretive signs at trailheads and parking areas on history, user ethics, geology, and wildlife resources. 

Provide stewardship information to help preserve the special landscape character.

Provide for a map with designated roads and trails, trailheads, camp sites, and information regarding 

the Red Gulch/Alkali Road National Back Country Byway, Medicine Lodge Wildlife Habitat Area;

Trapper Creek, Medicine Lodge, and Alkali Creek WSAs, the Madison Recharge zone, and caving ethics. 

Maintain the Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite.

Make available for special outdoor educational programs such as CORE and Take it Outside!
Appendix J Recreation Management 

Access and Easements September 2015

412 Worland Approved RMP

Monitoring

Solicit partnerships and cooperative agreements to: Monitor outcome attainment and 

preferences through customer assessments (focus group interviews or visitor studies), 

Monitor recreation setting condition through on-site patrols throughout the year.

Vehicle counters with routine surveys and observation. 

Visitor reports of crowding.

Informal visitor surveys and formal focus groups as funding allow.

If trends show that use is over acceptable limits, additional action may be considered, such as encouraging 

use on other trails.

Management

Signs present at key access points, but limited within the SRMA. 

Interpretive signs at trailheads and parking areas.

Develop new and maintain trailheads for foot and horse travel. Potential locations will 

include the Webber Canyon area, White Creek, Black Mountain area, Wapiti Ridge Trail, 

Lone Tree Trail and trailhead, Black Butte, and along the Red Gulch/Alkali Road National 

Back Country Byway. Additional sites may be identified throughout the life of the plan. 

Upgrade access route to the Lone Tree trailhead and upgrade the Lone Tree Trail.

Develop hiking trails in the Wet and Dry Medicine Lodge Canyons. 

Construct Trailheads to accommodate mountain bike users.

Construct Pull-offs along the Red Gulch/Alkali Road. 

Back Country Byway.

Maintain the OHV route between the Medicine Lodge State Park and Cold Springs Road. 

Designate motorized touring loops connecting with the Bighorn National Forest, the Canyons 

RMZ, and the Brokenback/Logging Road RMZ, which may include new construction.

Develop campgrounds if needed.

Work with local spelunking community and adjacent land management agencies to maintain cave and karst areas.

Administrative
Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

Worland Approved RMP 413

Visual Resource Management:

Class I within the Medicine Lodge, Trapper Creek, and Alkali Creek WSAs. Class II and III for the remainder of 

RMZ.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

All motorized use (including over-snow travel) is limited to designated roads and trails. Off 

road use within the WSAs is strictly prohibited.

Over-snow travel off of designated routes and ways is strictly prohibited. 

All motorized travel is prohibited within the Spanish Point ACEC.

Lands and Realty:

ROW avoidance area.

Alternative energy avoidance area for realty actions.

Consider the acquisition of legal and/or physical access for hunting, fishing, and camping. Consider acquiring areas 

such as Horse Mountain, Trapper Creek, and White Creek.

Minerals:

Do not pursue withdraw from appropriation under the mining laws for lands within the Canyons RMZ.

Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

Avoid surface-disturbing activities such as geophysical exploration (except casual use), salable 

minerals exploration and developments, and construction activities (except those related to 

development of recreation facilities or wildlife habitat).

Apply CSU restriction for this zone.

Special Recreation Permits:

SRPs will be issued as a discretionary action. Issue SRPs for a wide variety of uses, that 

are consistent with resource/program objectives, and within budgetary/workload constraints. 

Cost recovery procedures for issuing SRPs would be applied where appropriate.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on available SRPs may be developed and implemented.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on SRP group numbers may be developed and implemented.

To assist in the determination of whether an organized group activity or event would require an SRP, factors such as 

the following may be considered: resource concerns, user conflicts, need for monitoring, health and safety concerns, 

risk of damage to federal facilities or property. The following guidelines will be used in determining SRP status:

1-15 participants – No SRP required, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed.

16-30 participants – Letter of Agreement, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed. 

Over 30 participants – SRP required.

Agreements:

Maintain cooperative agreement with Wyoming State Land Board, and Wyoming State Game and Fish. 

Seek other agreements and partnerships as appropriate.

Partners:

Big Horn National Forest, Wyoming State Land Board, Wyoming State Trails Program, Wyoming Game and 

Fish, Medicine Lodge State Park, IMBA, surrounding private land owners, Back Country Horsemen, Rocky 

Mountain Elk Foundation, and other sports groups.

Other Administration:

Limit the use of signing or other administrative controls unless and until monitoring supports an increase in 

education, signing, or enforcement to meet public recreation objectives for the area.

West Slope of the Bighorns SRMA

SRMAs are administrative units where the existing or proposed recreation opportunities and recreation setting 

characteristics are recognized for their unique value, importance, and/or distinctiveness; especially compared to other 

areas used for recreation. For each SRMA: establish objective decisions, describe recreation setting characteristics, 

identify management actions and allowable use decisions and, if necessary, identify implementation decisions.

Brokenback/Logging Road RMZ

SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Appendix J Recreation Management 

Access and Easements September 2015

414 Worland Approved RMP

Briefly describe the rationale for designating the SRMA including the unique value, importance or distinctiveness 

of the area. This documents the rationale for consideration of the SRMA in the planning process and, if selected, 

designation of the SRMA in the record of decision.

This area exhibits exceptional scenic quality, wildlife resources, and exposed geologic formations. The Hyattville 

Logging Road is within this area and is proposed to be a backcountry byway for Alternative B. The Logging Road is 

a popular access point into the Bighorn Mountains. Two other routes, the North and South Brokenback Roads act 

as very popular access points into the RMZ, as well as the Bighorn National Forest, during the big game hunting 

seasons. Access into this area is in part due to a coordinated agreement between the Wyoming Game and Fish and 

surrounding private land holders, as well as a foot/horse trail developed by the BLM so as to access more of this 

area. This area is a very popular hunting area for both local and visiting hunters.

SRMA/RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONE (RMZ) OBJECTIVE(S) DECISIONS

SRMAs may be subdivided into RMZs with discrete objectives. SRMA/RMZ objectives must define the specific 

recreation opportunities (i.e., activities, experiences and benefits derived from those experiences) which become the 

focus of Recreation and Visitor Services (R&VS) management.

Objective Statement:

Manage the Brokenback/Logging Road RMZ as a zone within the West Slope of the Bighorns SRMA for motorized 

and nonmotorized recreationists to engage in hiking, hunting, wildlife viewing, nature viewing, and driving for 

pleasure so that they report realizing a “moderate” level of recreation experience and benefit outcomes in

these Back Country and Middle Country settings.

Activities:

Hunting, hiking, wildlife viewing, nature viewing, driving for pleasure.

Experiences:

Enjoy going exploring on my/our own.

Enjoy having easy access to natural landscapes.

Savoring the total sensory – sight, sound, and smell – experience of a natural landscape. 

Enjoying the closeness of family.

Benefits:

Greater sensitivity to/awareness of outdoor aesthetics, nature’s art and its elegance. 

Stronger ties with my family and friends.

Greater awareness that the Bighorn Basin is special.

Heightened sense of satisfaction with our area as a place to live.

Greater community involvement in recreation and other land use decisions. 

Greater family bonding.

Increased desirability as a place to live or retire.

Maintenance of community’s distinctive recreation/tourism market niche or character.

RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTIC (RSC) DESCRIPTIONS

Describe the physical, social and operational recreation setting qualities to be maintained or enhanced.
Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

Worland Approved RMP 415

Physical

Remoteness:

Middle Country Settings.

On or near 4-wheel drive roads, but at least 0.5 mile from all improved roads, though they may be in sight. 

Front Country settings along the Hyattville Logging Road.

On or near improved country roads, but at least 0.5 mile from any highway.

Naturalness:

Back Country Settings.

Natural setting may have subtle modifications but not draw the attention of the casual observer wandering 

through the area.

Facilities and Structures:

Front/Middle Country.

FrontCountry settingsfor lands along the South and NorthBrokenbackRoads, and along the Hyattville LoggingRoad.

Primitive and improved routes/trails may exist. Facilities and structures are back country 

settings where they are rare and isolated.

Remainder of RMZ is Middle Country.

Primitive motorized and nonmotorized trails may exist. 

Social

Contacts and Group Size:

Back Country.

Usually up to 6 encounters/day off travel routes, and up to 15 encounters/day on trails. Usually group size is small. 

Operational

Mechanized Use:

Middle Country.

4-wheel drive vehicles, ATVs, dirt bikes, or snowmobiles in addition to nonmotorized mechanized use.

Management Controls and Visitor Services:

Back Country.

On site controls and services present but subtle. Minimum amount necessary to achieve planning objectives. 

Personnel periodic. Rules clearly posted with some restrictions. Periodic enforcement, with an increase in 

BLM presence during big game hunting season.

IMPLEMENTING DECISIONS

Implementation decisions are actions to achieve or implement land use plan decisions. Implementation decisions 

include: management, administration, information and education and monitoring.

Information and Education

Develop interpretive signs at trailheads and parking areas on history, user ethics, geology, and wildlife resources. 

Provide stewardship information to help preserve the special landscape character.

Provide for a map with designated roads and trails, trailheads, camp sites, and information 

regarding the Hyattville/Logging Road Back Country Byway, Carter Access area, and Wyoming 

Game and Fish Wildlife Habitat Management Areas.

Make available for special outdoor educational programs such as CORE and Take it Outside!

Monitoring

Vehicle counters with routine surveys and observation.

Visitor reports of crowding.

Informal visitor surveys and formal focus groups as funding allow.

If trends show that use is over acceptable limits, additional action may be considered, such as encouraging 

use on other trails.

Management
Appendix J Recreation Management 

Access and Easements September 2015

416 Worland Approved RMP

Develop facilities to enhance recreation and visitor services for the following areas:

● Trailheads for North and South Brokenback areas, Laddie Creek, and the Hyatteville Logging Road.

● Pull-outs along the Hyatteville Logging Road.

● Improve Salt Lick trail and trailhead.

● Construct additional trailheads and trails on a case-by-case basis or as the needs arise.

Designate motorized touring loops within the Brokenback/Logging road RMZ as well as connecting with the 

Canyons RMZ and the Bighorn National Forest, which may include new construction.

Administrative

Visual Resource Management:

Class II.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

All motorized use (including over-snow travel) is limited to designated roads and trails. 

Continue to implement current South Broken Back Travel Management Plan.

Lands and Realty:

ROW avoidance area.

Alternative energy avoidance area for realty actions.

Consider the acquisition of legal and/or physical access for hunting, fishing, and camping for areas including but not 

limited to North and South Brokenback roads, Luman Creek Road, Military Creek Road, Dorn Draw Road.

Lengthen public access duration for the North and South Brokenback roads to yearlong access under terms of the 

related Travel Management Plan.

Minerals:

Do not pursue withdraw from appropriation under the mining 

laws for lands within the Brokenback/Logging Road RMZ.

Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

Avoid surface-disturbing activities such as geophysical exploration, salable minerals exploration and developments, 

and construction activities (except those related to development of recreation facilities or wildlife habitat).

Apply a CSU for this zone.

Special Recreation Permits:

SRPs will be issued as a discretionary action. Issue SRPs for a wide variety of uses, that 

are consistent with resource/program objectives, and within budgetary/workload constraints. 

Cost recovery procedures for issuing SRPs would be applied where appropriate.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on available SRPs may be developed and implemented.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on SRP group numbers may be developed and implemented.

To assist in the determination of whether an organized group activity or event would require an SRP, factors such as 

the following may be considered: resource concerns, user conflicts, need for monitoring, health and safety concerns, 

risk of damage to federal facilities or property. The following guidelines will be used in determining SRP status:

1-15 participants – No SRP required, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed.

16-30 participants – Letter of Agreement, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed. 

Over 30 participants – SRP required.

Agreements:

Pursue additional access agreement in the South Brokenback, and North Brokenback areas. 

Maintain current easement agreement with local land owners in this zone.

Seek other agreements and partnerships as appropriate.

Partners:

Big Horn National Forest, Wyoming State Land Board, Wyoming State Trails Program, Wyoming Game and Fish, 

private land owners, Back Country Horsemen, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and other sports groups.

Other Administration:

Limit the use of signing or other administrative controls unless and until monitoring supports an increase in 

education, signing, or enforcement to meet public recreation objectives for the area.
Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

Worland Approved RMP 417

South Bighorns ERMA

ERMAs are administrative units that require specific management consideration in order to address recreation use, 

demand, or Recreation and Visitor Services (R&VS) program investments. ERMAs are managed to support

and sustain the principal recreation activities and the associated qualities and conditions of the ERMA. ERMA 

management is commensurate and considered in context with the management of other resources and resource uses.

The southern Bighorns are popular for visitors to explore, hike, and especially hunt. Outfitters and tour guides enjoy 

guiding clients here due to the impressive and exceptional scenic qualities, abundant wildlife, and alternative access 

points onto 33-Mile Road (Hazelton Road) which exhibits exceptional viewing opportunities of the surrounding 

mountain landscape, the Cloud Peak Wilderness, the Bighorn Basin, and the Powder River Basin to the east; as well 

as access into the Hole-in-the-Wall region, the Middle Fork of the Powder River, Casper, and the Bighorn National 

Forest. The South Bighorns contain a rich history including cattle and sheep operations, mining, and infamous 

outlaws including Billy the Kid. Currently, an impressive coordinated travel management effort improving access 

into the area as well as improving resource management exists between the BLM, Wyoming State Game and Fish, 

Wyoming State Land Board, and the Orchard Ranch. A coordinated resource effort once existed between the BLM, 

Wyoming State Land Board, and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, which accomplished recreation, wildlife, 

and weed management goals. The impressive Deep Creek is a waterway segment identified as eligible and draft 

suitable for inclusion into the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, as well as a sought-after fishery for exceptional fishing 

and sightseeing opportunities. Due to the amount of and the spatial location of private lands within the Southern 

Bighorns, the most appropriate recreation management strategy of the area would be under a separateERMA.

ERMA OBJECTIVE(S) DECISION

ERMA objectives must define the recreation activities and the associated qualities and conditions which become the 

focus for R&VS management.

Objective Statement:

Manage the South Bighorns as an ERMA for motorized and nonmotorized recreationists to engage in hiking, 

wildlife viewing, nature viewing, hunting, fishing, and driving for pleasure in these Back Country and Middle 

Country settings.

ERMA OBJECTIVE(S) DECISION

ERMA objectives must define the recreation activities and the associated qualities and conditions which become the 

focus for R&VS management.
Appendix J Recreation Management 

Access and Easements September 2015

418 Worland Approved RMP

Physical

Remoteness:

Middle Country Settings.

On or near 4-wheel drive roads, but at least 0.5 mile from all improved roads, though they may be in sight. 

Front Country settings along Rome Hill Road, Dry Farm Road, and Hazelton Road.

On or near improved country roads, but at least 0.5 mile from any highway.

Naturalness:

Back Country Settings.

Middle Country.

Natural setting may have subtle modifications but not draw the attention of the casual observer wandering 

through the area.

Facilities and Structures:

Primitive motorized and nonmotorized trails may exist. Facilities and structures are rare and often accessible via 

unimproved routes.

Social

Contacts and Group Size:

Back Country settings.

Usually up to 6 encounters/day off travel routes, and up to 15 encounters/day on trails. Usually group size is small. 

Rural settings along Upper Nowood Road where people seem to be everywhere, but human contact remains 

intermittent.

Operational

Mechanized Use:

Front/Middle Country.

Front Country along Cherry Creek Road, Dry Farm Road, Spring Creek Road, Rome Hill Road, and Hazelton Road. 

2-wheel drive vehicles predominant, but also 4-wheel drive vehicles and nonmotorized mechanized use.

Middle Country for remainder of ERMA.

4-wheel drive vehicles, ATVs, dirt bikes, or snowmobiles in addition to nonmotorized mechanized use.

Management Controls and Visitor Services:

Back Country.

On site controls and services are present but subtle.

Personnel periodic. Rules clearly posted with some restrictions. Periodic enforcement, with an increase in 

BLM presence during big game hunting season.

IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

Implementation decisions are actions to achieve or implement land use plan decisions. Implementation decisions 

include: management, administration, information and education and monitoring.

Information and Education

Some onsite visitor orientation (kiosk and trail markers) will be developed, which may include 

interpretive signs at trailheads and parking areas on history, user ethics, wildlife resources, etc. 

Provide stewardship information to help preserve the special landscape character. Work with partners 

to provide additional interpretation of the historic events and buildings, ranches, and other remnants. 

Provide for a map with designated roads and trails, trailheads, camp sites, and information regarding 

the Hazelton Road Back Country Byway, and the Upper Nowood Travel Management Plan.

Make available for special outdoor educational programs such as CORE and Take it Outside!

Monitoring

Vehicle counters with routine surveys, on-site patrols, and observation. 

Visitor reports of crowding.

Informal visitor surveys and formal focus groups as funding allow.

If trends show that use is over acceptable limits, additional action may be considered, such as encouraging 

use on other trails.

Management
Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

Worland Approved RMP 419

Develop facilities necessary to maximize recreational opportunities at areas such as, but not 

limited to the Cherry Creek stock driveway crossing of Deep Creek, Otter Creek, and Split Rock.

Develop trailheads for Mahogany Butte, Deep Creek, Upper Nowood areas, and in other areas on a case-by-case 

basis so as to sustain recreational opportunities, as well as to address use and user conflicts, public health and 

safety, and to address resource protection.

Administrative

Visual Resource Management:

Manage VRM consistent with other resource management objectives.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

All motorized use (including over-snow travel) is limited to designated roads and trails. 

Continue to implement Upper Nowood Travel Management Plan.

Lands and Realty:

ROW avoidance area.

Open to alternative energy development. Co-locate renewable energy ROW authorizations whenever possible. 

Consider the acquisition of legal and/or physical access for hunting, fishing, boating, and camping. Areas to 

be considered for acquisition include Otter Creek, Deep Creek, Little Canyon Creek, public land tracts along 

the Nowood River area, Cherry Creek Road to Hazelton Road, Lysite Mountain, land parcels within Spring 

Creek, and Spring Creek Road to Rome Hill Road.

Minerals:

Do not pursue withdraw from appropriation under the mining laws for lands within the South Bighorns ERMA.

Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

Allow surface-disturbing activities.

Review mineral leases on a case-by-case basis and apply mitigation through activity level planning.

Special Recreation Permits:

SRPs will be issued as a discretionary action. Issue SRPs for a wide variety of uses, that 

are consistent with resource/program objectives, and within budgetary/workload constraints. 

Cost recovery procedures for issuing SRPs would be applied where appropriate.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on available SRPs may be developed and implemented.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on SRP group numbers may be developed and implemented.

To assist in the determination of whether an organized group activity or event would require an SRP, factors such as 

the following may be considered: resource concerns, user conflicts, need for monitoring, health and safety concerns, 

risk of damage to federal facilities or property. The following guidelines will be used in determining SRP status:

1-15 participants – No SRP required, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed.

16-30 participants – Letter of Agreement, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed. 

Over 30 participants – SRP required.

Agreements:

Pursue/revitalize cooperative agreement with Double-H Ranch, 

Wyoming State Land Board, and Wyoming Game and Fish.

Maintain cooperative agreement with Orchard Ranch, Wyoming State Land Board, and Wyoming Game and Fish. 

Seek other agreements and partnerships as appropriate.

Partners:

Including, but not limited to the Big Horn National Forest, Wyoming State Land Board, Wyoming State Trails 

Program, Wyoming Game and Fish, private land owners, Orchard Ranch, Double-H Ranch, Back Country 

Horsemen, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ten Sleep, and other sports groups.

Other Administration:

Limit the use of signing or other administrative controls unless and until monitoring supports an increase in 

education, signing, or enforcement to meet public recreation objectives for the area.

Middle Fork of the Powder River SRMA
Appendix J Recreation Management 

Access and Easements September 2015

420 Worland Approved RMP

SRMAs are administrative units where the existing or proposed recreation opportunities and recreation setting 

characteristics are recognized for their unique value, importance, and/or distinctiveness; especially compared to other 

areas used for recreation. For each SRMA: establish objective decisions, describe recreation setting characteristics, 

identify management actions and allowable use decisions and, if necessary, identify implementation decisions.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Briefly describe the rationale for designating the SRMA including the unique value, importance or distinctiveness 

of the area. This documents the rationale for consideration of the SRMA in the planning process and, if selected, 

designation of the SRMA in the record of decision.

BLM manages a campground along the Middle Fork of the Powder River which is a destination area for visitors 

from within and outside the region. The Middle Fork of the Powder River is managed as a blue ribbon trout 

fishery, as well as identified as eligible and draft suitable for inclusion into the Wild and Scenic River System. The 

Buffalo Field Office had also identified the Middle Fork of the Powder River within their jurisdiction as eligible for 

inclusion into the Wild and Scenic River System. This area has received significant managerial support from both 

the Worland and Buffalo Field Offices in coordination with the Wyoming State Game and Fish in improving access 

into the area to support a variety of recreational activities, dominantly hunting and fishing.

SRMA/RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONE (RMZ) OBJECTIVE(S) DECISIONS

SRMAs may be subdivided into RMZs with discrete objectives. SRMA/RMZ objectives must define the specific 

recreation opportunities (i.e., activities, experiences and benefits derived from those experiences) which become the 

focus of Recreation and Visitor Services (R&VS) management.

Objective Statement:

Manage the Middle Fork of the Powder River as an SRMA with a destination strategy for motorized and 

nonmotorized recreationists to engage in fishing, hunting, hiking, wildlife viewing, nature viewing, and driving 

for pleasure so that they report realizing a “moderate” level of recreation experience and benefit outcomes in 

these Back Country and Middle Country settings.

Activities:

Fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, photography, nature viewing, general dispersed recreation, Driving for 

pleasure, snowmobiling, snowshoeing.

Experiences:

Enjoy going exploring on my/our own.

Enjoy having easy access to natural landscapes.

Savoring the total sensory – sight, sound, and smell – experience of a natural landscape. 

Enjoying the closeness of family.

Feeling good about solitude, being isolated, and independent.

Benefits:

Greater sensitivity to/awareness of outdoor aesthetics, nature’s art and its elegance. 

Stronger ties with my family and friends.

Greater awareness that the Bighorn Basin is special. 

Greater spiritual growth.

Heightened sense of satisfaction with our area as a place to live. 

Lifestyle improvement or maintenance.

Greater family bonding.

More well-rounded childhood development. 

Increased desirability as a place to live or retire.

RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTIC (RSC) DESCRIPTIONS

Describe the physical, social and operational recreation setting qualities to be maintained or enhanced.
Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

Worland Approved RMP 421

Physical

Remoteness:

Middle Country Settings.

Front Country settings along Hazelton Road and the Middle Fork of the Powder River Campground.On 

or near 4-wheel drive roads, but at least 0.5 mile from all improved roads, though they may be in sight.

Naturalness:

Back Country Settings.

Natural setting may have subtle modifications but not draw the 

attention of the casual observer wandering through the area.

Middle Country Settings for lands within the Middle Fork of the Powder River Campground.

Natural setting may have moderately dominant alterations but would not draw the attention of the observers on trail 

and primitive roads within the area.

Facilities and Structures:

Middle Country.

Primitive motorized and nonmotorized trails may exist. Facilities 

and structures are rare and often accessible via unimproved routes.

Manage the Middle Fork of the Powder River Campground as Front Country. 

Social

Contacts and Group Size:

Back Country settings.

Usually up to 6 encounters/day off travel routes, and up to 15 encounters/day on trails. Usually group size is small. 

Middle country settings along Hazelton Road and Middle Fork of the Powder River Campground. Usually 7-14 

encounters/day off travel routes (e.g., staging areas and campgrounds), and 15-29 encounters/day en route.

Usually group size is small to moderate. 

Operational

Mechanized Use:

Front Country along Hazelton Road.

2-wheel drive vehicles predominant, but also 4-wheel drive vehicles and nonmotorized mechanized use. 

Middle Country for remainder of SRMA.

4-wheel drive vehicles, ATVs, dirt bikes, or snowmobiles in addition to nonmotorized mechanized use.

Management Controls and Visitor Services:

Back Country.

On site controls and services are present but subtle.

Personnel periodic. Rules clearly posted with some restrictions. Periodic enforcement, with an increase in 

BLM presence during big game hunting season.

IMPLEMENTING DECISIONS

Implementation decisions are actions to achieve or implement land use plan decisions. Implementation decisions 

include: management, administration, information and education and monitoring.

Information and Education

Some onsite visitor orientation (kiosk and trail markers) will be developed. This may include 

orientation methods such as interpretive signs at trailheads and Middle Fork of the Powder River 

Campground on history, user ethics, and fish and wildlife resources.

Provide stewardship information to help preserve the special landscape character.

Provide for a map with designated roads and trails, trailheads, camp sites, and information 

regarding the Hazelton Road Back Country Byway.

Make available for special outdoor educational programs such as CORE and Take it Outside!

Monitoring
Appendix J Recreation Management 

Access and Easements September 2015

422 Worland Approved RMP

Vehicle counters with routine surveys, on-site patrols, and observation. 

Visitor reports of crowding.

Informal visitor surveys and formal focus groups as funding allow.

If trends show that use is over acceptable limits, additional action may be considered, such as encouraging use on 

other trails or other campgrounds, reevaluating fee structure, etc.

Management

Maintain and improve the Middle Fork of the Powder River campground and associated 

so as to maximize identified beneficial outcomes.

Develop additional trailheads, campgrounds, or other recreational facilities on a case-by-case basis so as 

to meet identified beneficial outcomes, recreational setting character conditions, and resource maintenance. 

Develop trailhead at the Middle Fork Campground, and in other areas on a case-by-case basis.

Administrative
Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

Worland Approved RMP 423

Visual Resource Management:

Class II.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

All motorized use (including over-snow travel) is limited to designated roads and trails.

Lands and Realty:

ROW avoidance area.

Alternative energy avoidance area for realty actions.

Consider the acquisition of legal and/or physical access for recreation related opportunities. Areas to be considered 

for acquisition include public land tracts along the Cherry Creek Road to Hazelton Road, and along Hazelton Road.

Minerals:

Do not pursue withdraw from appropriation under the mining laws for lands within the Middle Fork 

Powder River SRMA.

Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

Apply a CSU stipulation for the Middle Fork Powder River SRMA.

Avoid surface-disturbing activities such as geophysical exploration (except casual use), salable minerals exploration 

and development, and construction activities (except those related to development of recreation facilities or 

wildlife habitat).

Special Recreation Permits:

SRPs will be issued as a discretionary action. Issue SRPs for a wide variety of uses, that 

are consistent with resource/program objectives, and within budgetary/workload constraints. 

Cost recovery procedures for issuing SRPs would be applied where appropriate.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on available SRPs may be developed and implemented.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on SRP group numbers may be developed and implemented.

To assist in the determination of whether an organized group activity or event would require an SRP, factors such as 

the following may be considered: resource concerns, user conflicts, need for monitoring, health and safety concerns, 

risk of damage to federal facilities or property. The following guidelines will be used in determining SRP status:

1-15 participants – No SRP required, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed.

16-30 participants – Letter of Agreement, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed. 

Over 30 participants – SRP required.

Agreements:

Pursue MOUs with surrounding land owners, Wyoming State Land Board, 

Wyoming Game and Fish, and the Buffalo and Casper BLM Field Offices. Seek 

other agreements and partnerships as appropriate.

Partners:

Wyoming State Land Board, Wyoming State Trails Program, Wyoming Game and Fish, Buffalo and Casper 

BLM Field Offices, private land owners, Back Country Horsemen, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation,

and other sports groups.

Other Administration:

Limit the use of signing or other administrative controls unless and until monitoring supports an increase in 

education, signing, or enforcement to meet public recreation objectives for the area.

Canyon Creek SRMA

SRMAs are administrative units where the existing or proposed recreation opportunities and recreation setting 

characteristics are recognized for their unique value, importance, and/or distinctiveness; especially compared to other 

areas used for recreation. For each SRMA: establish objective decisions, describe recreation setting characteristics, 

identify management actions and allowable use decisions and, if necessary, identify implementationdecisions.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Briefly describe the rationale for designating the SRMA including the unique value, importance or distinctiveness 

of the area. This documents the rationale for consideration of the SRMA in the planning process and, if selected, 

designation of the SRMA in the record of decision.
Appendix J Recreation Management 

Access and Easements September 2015

424 Worland Approved RMP

Canyon Creek area is located within the southern Bighorns just south of Highway 16, which is a very popular 

highway over the Bighorn Mountains as well as a popular route to Yellowstone National Park. Canyon Creek 

exhibits exceptionally high scenic qualities from the exposed dolomite and Ten Sleep formation observed through 

the impressive canyon complemented by the perennial Canyon Creek which supports a blue-ribbon fishery and a 

healthy riparian zone through the canyon. A subdivision (Canyon Creek Village) is growing south of the area in 

which residents enjoy exploring, hiking, hunting, and fishing Canyon Creek. Canyon Valley Resort is located within 

the area which provides recreational opportunities such as guiding services for visitors, big game outfitting, and 

golfing opportunities. The scenic qualities as well as the wildlife resources establish the foundation for the tourism 

market in this area. Smilo Road (BLM Road 1416) provides access into BLM-administered public lands east of 

Canyon Creek as well as the Bighorn National Forest.

SRMA/RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONE (RMZ) OBJECTIVE(S) DECISIONS

SRMAs may be subdivided into RMZs with discrete objectives. SRMA/RMZ objectives must define the specific 

recreation opportunities (i.e., activities, experiences and benefits derived from those experiences) which become the 

focus of Recreation and Visitor Services (R&VS) management.

Objective Statement:

Manage the Canyon Creek SRMA for nonmotorized recreationists to engage in hiking, hunting, fishing, nature 

viewing, and wildlife viewing so that they report realizing a “moderate” level of recreation experience and 

benefit outcomes in these Back Country settings.

Activities:

Fishing, hunting, hiking, nature viewing, wildlife viewing.

Experiences:

Savoring the total sensory – sight, sound, and smell – experience of a natural landscape. 

Develop skills and abilities.

Enjoy going exploring on my/our own.

Enjoy having easy access to natural landscapes. 

Enjoying getting some needed physical exercise.

Benefits:

Improved mental well-being.

Improved physical fitness and health maintenance.

Heightened sense of satisfaction with our area as a place to live.

Greater community involvement in recreation and other land use decisions. 

Greater family bonding.

Increased desirability as a place to live or retire.

Maintenance of community’s distinctive recreation/tourism market niche or character.

RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTIC (RSC) DESCRIPTIONS

Describe the physical, social and operational recreation setting qualities to be maintained or enhanced.
Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

Worland Approved RMP 425

Physical

Remoteness:

Back Country.

More than 0.5 mile from any road, but not as distant as 3 miles, and no road is in sight. Smilo Road, the access route 

to the Canyon Creek fishing access parking area, and few other two-tracks are observed along the edges of the area.

Naturalness:

Back Country.

Natural setting may have subtle modifications but not draw the attention of the casual observer wandering 

through the area.

Facilities and Structures:

Back Country.

Trails may exist but do not exceed standard to carry expected use. Facilities and structures are rare and isolated. 

Social

Contacts and Group Size:

Back Country settings.

Usually up to 6 encounters/day off travel routes, and up to 15 encounters/day on trails. Usually group size is small. 

Operational

Mechanized Use:

Back Country.

Mountain bikes perhaps other mechanize use but all is nonmotorized. Smilo Road will remain open to 

motorized access into area.

Management Controls and Visitor Services:

Back Country.

On site controls and services are present but subtle.

Personnel periodic. Rules clearly posted with some restrictions. Periodic enforcement, with an increase in 

BLM presence during big game hunting season.

IMPLEMENTING DECISIONS

Implementation decisions are actions to achieve or implement land use plan decisions. Implementation decisions 

include: management, administration, information and education and monitoring.

Information and Education

Develop interpretive signs at trailheads and parking areas on history, user ethics, nonnative 

invasive weed species found within the area, geology, and other current resource programs. 

Provide stewardship information to help preserve the special landscape character.

Provide for a map with designated roads, trailheads, trails, and camp sites.

Make available for special outdoor educational programs such as CORE and Take it Outside!

Monitoring

Solicit partnerships and cooperative agreements to: Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer 

assessments (focus group interviews or visitor studies), Monitor recreation setting condition through on-site patrols. 

Vehicle counters with routine surveys and observation.

Visitor reports of crowding.

Informal visitor surveys and formal focus groups as funding allow.

Management

Utilize adaptive management techniques to provide identified recreation opportunities (activities, 

experiences, and benefits) and reach desired future setting conditions.

Develop looping hiking trails in Canyon Creek, and off of Smilo Road. 

Develop trailheads at Canyon Creek and Smilo Road.

Some onsite visitor orientation (kiosk and trail markers) will be developed.

Administrative
Appendix J Recreation Management 

Access and Easements September 2015

426 Worland Approved RMP

Visual Resource Management:

Class II.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

All motorized use (including over-snow travel) is limited to designated roads and trails.

Lands and Realty:

ROW avoidance area.

Alternative energy avoidance area for realty actions.

Acquire legal and physical access to maximize recreational opportunities.

Minerals:

Do not pursue withdraw from appropriation under the mining laws for lands within the Canyon Creek SRMA.

Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

Avoid surface-disturbing activities such as geophysical exploration, salable minerals exploration and developments, 

and construction activities (except those related to development of recreation facilities or wildlife habitat).

Apply a CSU stipulation.

Special Recreation Permits:

SRPs will be issued as a discretionary action. Issue SRPs for a wide variety of uses, that 

are consistent with resource/program objectives, and within budgetary/workload constraints. 

Cost recovery procedures for issuing SRPs would be applied where appropriate.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on available SRPs may be developed and implemented.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on SRP group numbers may be developed and implemented.

To assist in the determination of whether an organized group activity or event would require an SRP, factors such as 

the following may be considered: resource concerns, user conflicts, need for monitoring, health and safety concerns, 

risk of damage to federal facilities or property. The following guidelines will be used in determining SRP status:

1-15 participants – No SRP required, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed.

16-30 participants – Letter of Agreement, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed. 

Over 30 participants – SRP required.

Agreements:

Pursue a cooperative agreement with the Canyon Creek Estates. 

Seek other agreements and partnerships as appropriate.

Partners:

Big Horn National Forest, Wyoming State Land Board, Wyoming State Trails Program, Wyoming Game and 

Fish, private land owners, Canyon Creek Estates, community of Ten Sleep, Back Country Horsemen, and 

other interested groups.

Other Administration:

Limit the use of signing or other administrative controls unless and until monitoring supports an increase in 

education, signing, or enforcement to meet public recreation objectives for the area.

Red Canyon Creek ERMA

ERMAs are administrative units that require specific management consideration in order to address recreation use, 

demand, or Recreation and Visitor Services (R&VS) program investments. ERMAs are managed to support

and sustain the principal recreation activities and the associated qualities and conditions of the ERMA. ERMA 

management is commensurate and considered in context with the management of other resources and resource uses.

Red Canyon Creek is located along the slopes of the Owl Creek Mountains outside the community of Thermopolis. 

This area exhibits high scenic qualities, wildlife resources, and opportunities for primitive-type recreation. A 

subdivision is growing on the north side of the area, which the adjacent BLM-administered public lands provides for 

easy-to-access public lands for the local residents. The community of Thermopolis has been marketing its natural 

recreational resources (most especially its thermal resources located within the very popular Hot Springs State Park), 

as well as prioritizing primitive-type recreational opportunities such as hiking, and horseback riding within the State 

Park. Other uses exist within and around the area such as livestock grazing, and mineral development. Legal public 

access into the area is questionable, and there are private surface land parcels within the area.

ERMA OBJECTIVE(S) DECISION
Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

Worland Approved RMP 427

ERMA objectives must define the recreation activities and the associated qualities and conditions which become the 

focus for R&VS management.

Objective Statement:

Manage the Red Canyon Creek ERMA to maintain a back country setting, to address public health and safety, use 

and user conflicts, and resource protection. In addition, recreation management within the ERMA will manage for 

motorized and nonmotorized recreationists to engage in hiking, hunting, wildlife viewing, and nature viewing.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS & ALLOWABLE USE DECISIONS

Identify management action and allowable use decisions for R&VS and other programs necessary to: facilitate 

visitor participation in the identified outdoor recreation activities; maintain particular recreation setting 

characteristics; address visitor health and safety, resource protection, and use and user conflicts; and, address the 

type(s), activities, and locations where special recreation permits would or would not be issued.

Physical

Remoteness:

Back Country.

Most of the SRMA is more than 0.5 mile from any road, but not as distant as 3 miles, and no road is in 

sight. Access routes (two-tracks and improved route) exist along the fringe of the SRMA, as well as within 

parcels of private lands within the area.

Naturalness:

Back Country.

Natural setting may have subtle modifications but not draw the attention of the casual observer wandering 

through the area.

Facilities and Structures:

Back Country.

Primitive motorized routes and nonmotorized trails may exist. Facilities and structures are rare and often 

accessible via unimproved routes.

Social

Contacts and Group Size:

Back Country.

Usually up to 6 encounters/day off travel routes, and up to 15 encounters/day on trails. Usually group size is small. 

Operational

Mechanized Use:

Back Country.

Manage the SRMA for mountain bikes perhaps other mechanized use but all is nonmotorized. The fringes 

will be managed for 4-wheel drive vehicles, ATVs, dirt bikes, or snowmobiles in addition to nonmotorized 

mechanized use so as to maintain current land uses.

Management Controls and Visitor Services:

Back Country.

On site controls and services are present but subtle.

Personnel periodic. Rules clearly posted with some restrictions. Periodic enforcement, with an increase in 

BLM presence during big game hunting season.

IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

Implementation decisions are actions to achieve or implement land use plan decisions. Implementation decisions 

include: management, administration, information and education and monitoring.

Information and Education

Develop visitor orientation signs at trailheads and parking areas on user ethics, designated motorized routes, 

trails, nonnative invasive weed species found within the area, geology, and other current resource programs. 

Provide stewardship information to help preserve the special landscape character.

Make available for special outdoor educational programs such as CORE and Take it Outside!

Monitoring
Appendix J Recreation Management 

Access and Easements September 2015

428 Worland Approved RMP

Vehicle counters with routine surveys and on-site patrols.

Monitor for resource degradation, user conflicts, health and safety, and prescribed settings.

Management

Develop hiking trail to Red Canyon Creek. 

Develop trailheads at northern access point.

Signs present at key access points, but limited within the ERMA.

Interpretive signs and visitor orientation materials at trailheads and parking areas.

Engage local community, businesses, and other partners in the development and distribution of a 

brochure and/or area guide book.

Administrative

Visual Resource Management:

Manage VRM consistent with other resource management objectives.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

All motorized use (including over-snow travel) is limited to designated roads and trails.

Lands and Realty:

ROW avoidance area.

Alternative energy avoidance area for realty actions.

Pursue legal and physical access to maximize recreational opportunities.

Minerals:

Do not pursue withdraw from appropriation under the mining laws for lands within the Red Canyon Creek ERMA.

Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

On a case-by-case basis, allow surface-disturbing activities such as geophysical exploration (except 

casual use), salable minerals exploration and development, and construction activities (except those 

related to development of recreation facilities or wildlife habitat).

Review mineral leases on a case-by-case basis, open Red Canyon Creek area to appropriations under the mining 

laws, and authorize mineral material sales and/or free use permits; apply mitigation through activity level planning.

Special Recreation Permits:

SRPs will be issued as a discretionary action. Issue SRPs for a wide variety of uses, that 

are consistent with resource/program objectives, and within budgetary/workload constraints. 

Cost recovery procedures for issuing SRPs would be applied where appropriate.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on available SRPs may be developed and implemented.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on SRP group numbers may be developed and implemented.

To assist in the determination of whether an organized group activity or event would require an SRP, factors such as 

the following may be considered: resource concerns, user conflicts, need for monitoring, health and safety concerns, 

risk of damage to federal facilities or property. The following guidelines will be used in determining SRP status:

1-15 participants – No SRP required, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed. 

16-30 participants – Letter of Agreement, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed. 

Over 30 participants – SRP required.

Partners:

Community of Thermopolis, Hot Springs State Park, Wyoming State Land Board, Wyoming State Trails Program, 

Wyoming Game and Fish, private land owners, Back Country Horsemen, and other interested groups.

Other Administration:

Limit the use of signing or other administrative controls unless and until monitoring supports an increase in 

education, signing, or enforcement to meet public recreation objectives for the area.

Basin Gardens Play Area SRMA

SRMAs are administrative units where the existing or proposed recreation opportunities and recreation setting 

characteristics are recognized for their unique value, importance, and/or distinctiveness; especially compared to other 

areas used for recreation. For each SRMA: establish objective decisions, describe recreation setting characteristics, 

identify management actions and allowable use decisions and, if necessary, identify implementationdecisions.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

Worland Approved RMP 429

Briefly describe the rationale for designating the SRMA including the unique value, importance or distinctiveness 

of the area. This documents the rationale for consideration of the SRMA in the planning process and, if selected, 

designation of the SRMA in the record of decision.

This area is located between the Communities of Greybull and Basin, Wyoming. This area is currently being used 

for off-road hill climbs used by both ATVs and motorcycles, dominantly motorcycles. Visitors are from within the 

communities, as well as from outside the area, particularly Billings, Montana. The area is composed of bentonite 

and mostly devoid of vegetation. The Basin Gardens area provides for exceptional motorized hill climbing 

opportunities ranging from novice riders to very challenging climbs for the experienced riders. The communities 

from RMP Scoping opportunities had identified this area as highly desired for motorized recreational opportunities.

SRMA/RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONE (RMZ) OBJECTIVE(S) DECISIONS

SRMAs may be subdivided into RMZs with discrete objectives. SRMA/RMZ objectives must define the specific 

recreation opportunities (i.e., activities, experiences and benefits derived from those experiences) which become the 

focus of Recreation and Visitor Services (R&VS) management.

Objective Statement:

Manage the Basin Gardens Play Area SRMA for motorized recreationists to engage in ATV, motorbike, and other 

motorized hill climbing activities so that visitors report realizing a “moderate” level of recreation experience and 

benefit outcomes in these Front Country settings.

Activities:

Driving for pleasure, motorcycle hill climbing.

Experiences:

Developing skills and abilities. 

Enjoying risk-taking adventure.

Being around people I know and enjoy.

Benefits:

Improved physical fitness and health maintenance. 

Improved outdoor recreation skills.

Enhanced sense of personal freedom.

More well-rounded childhood development.

Heightened sense of satisfaction with our area as a place to live. 

Increased desirability as a place to live or retire.

Improved local economic stability. 

Increased local tourism revenue.

Maintenance of community’s distinctive recreation/tourism market niche or character.

RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTIC (RSC) DESCRIPTIONS

Describe the physical, social and operational recreation setting qualities to be maintained or enhanced.
Appendix J Recreation Management 

Access and Easements September 2015

430 Worland Approved RMP

Physical

Remoteness:

Front Country.

The RMZ is surrounded by county roads, and displays tracks from heavy off-road use.

Naturalness:

Front Country.

The area’s natural setting from the intense off-road use may have modifications which range from being easily 

noticed to strongly dominant to observers within the area. These alterations would remain unnoticed or visually 

subordinate from sensitive travel routes (Highway 16, 20) and use areas.

Facilities and Structures:

Front Country.

Primitive and improved routes/trails may exist. Facilities and structures are scattered. 

Social

Contacts and Group Size:

Middle Country settings.

Usually 7-14 encounters/day off travel routes (e.g., staging areas), and 15-29 encounters/day en route. Usually 

group size is small to moderate.

Operational

Mechanized Use:

Middle Country.

4-wheel drive vehicles, ATVs, dirt bikes, in addition to nonmotorized mechanized use.

Management Controls and Visitor Services:

Front Country.

On site controls and services are present but harmonize with the natural environment.

IMPLEMENTING DECISIONS

Implementation decisions are actions to achieve or implement land use plan decisions. Implementation decisions 

include: management, administration, information and education and monitoring.

Information and Education

Ensure targeted experiences and benefits is included and explained in all visitor information. 

Engage local sporting good businesses and other partners in the development and distribution 

of a brochure and/or area guide book.

Some onsite visitor orientation (kiosk and trail markers) will be developed. Orientation materials 

will include a map with designated routes/areas, trailheads, docking stations, and designated 

areas tailored for different degrees of riding experience (novice areas to experienced areas).

Make available for special educational programs such as CORE and Take it Outside!

Monitoring

Solicit partnerships and cooperative agreements to: Monitor outcome attainment and 

preferences through customer assessments (focus group interviews or visitor studies). 

Monitor recreation setting condition through on-site patrols.

Vehicle counters with routine surveys and observation. 

Visitor reports of crowding.

If trends show that use is over acceptable limits, additional action may be considered, such as encouraging use on 

other trails or areas or limiting carrying capacity at trailheads.

Management

Utilize adaptive management techniques to provide identified recreation opportunities (activities, 

experiences, and benefits) and reach desired future setting conditions.

Develop areas for novice riders to highly experienced riders.

Develop trailheads containing loading dock stations, kiosks, comfort stations, and adequate parking.

Administrative
Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

Worland Approved RMP 431

Visual Resource Management:

Manage visual resource objectives according to adjacent resource program prescriptions.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

Motorized use open to off-road/cross-country use.

Lands and Realty:

ROW avoidance area.

Alternative energy avoidance area for realty actions.

Pursue legal and physical access to maximize recreational opportunities.

Minerals:

Do not pursue withdraw from appropriation under the mining 

laws for lands within the Basin Gardens Play Area SRMA.

Avoid mineral material disposals in the Basin Gardens Play Area SRMA.

Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

Avoid surface-disturbing activities such as geophysical exploration, salable minerals exploration and developments, 

and construction activities (except those related to development of recreation facilities or wildlife habitat).

Apply a CSU restriction for the Basin Gardens Play Area SRMA.

Special Recreation Permits:

SRPs will be issued as a discretionary action. Issue SRPs for a wide variety of uses, that 

are consistent with resource/program objectives, and within budgetary/workload constraints. 

Cost recovery procedures for issuing SRPs would be applied where appropriate.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on available SRPs may be developed and implemented.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on SRP group numbers may be developed and implemented.

To assist in the determination of whether an organized group activity or event would require an SRP, factors such as 

the following may be considered: resource concerns, user conflicts, need for monitoring, health and safety concerns, 

risk of damage to federal facilities or property. The following guidelines will be used in determining SRP status:

1-15 participants – No SRP required, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed.

16-30 participants – Letter of Agreement, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed. 

Over 30 participants – SRP required.

Partners:

Surrounding communities including but not limited to Greybull, Basin, Manderson, and Worland, Wyoming 

State Trails Program, surrounding private land owners, NOHVCC, Sagehoppers, and other interested groups 

and OHV clubs.

Other Administration:

Limit the use of signing or other administrative controls unless and until monitoring supports an 

increase in education, signing, or enforcement to meet public recreation objectives for the area. 

No glass containers and pallets (burning, etc.) allowed.

Noise constraints are enforceable via 43 CFR 8343.1.

Rattlesnake Ridge ERMA

ERMAs are administrative units that require specific management consideration in order to address recreation use, 

demand, or Recreation and Visitor Services (R&VS) program investments. ERMAs are managed to support

and sustain the principal recreation activities and the associated qualities and conditions of the ERMA. ERMA 

management is commensurate and considered in context with the management of other resources and resource uses.
Appendix J Recreation Management 

Access and Easements September 2015

432 Worland Approved RMP

This area is located approximately 4 miles east of Worland, Wyoming. This area is currently being used for off-road 

hill climbs used by both ATVs and motorcycles, dominantly motorcycles; as well as oil and gas extraction activities, 

ROW projects including radio signal towers, and grazing. Most of the visitors are from within the Worland area, as 

well as from other areas outside of the Worland area, most especially from Thermopolis, Wyoming. The area is 

heavily used by motorized use enthusiasts, and is mostly devoid of vegetation. The Rattlesnake Ridge areaprovides 

for exceptional motorized hill climbing opportunities ranging from novice riders to very challenging climbs for

the experienced riders. In addition, the surrounding communities had identified this area as highly desirable for 

motorized recreational opportunities during the RMP Scoping meetings. The other uses within the area expose 

visitors to potential health risks from elements such as hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and active oil and gas extraction 

activities. Conflicts between users have been an issue and interim management between the oil and gas companies 

and recreationists has been established in this area, but without significant BLM management guidance.

ERMA OBJECTIVE(S) DECISION

ERMA objectives must define the recreation activities and the associated qualities and conditions which become the 

focus for R&VS management.

Objective Statement:

Manage the Rattlesnake Ridge ERMA for motorized recreationists to safely engage in ATV, motorbike, and other 

motorized hill climbing activities with a priority in addressing use and user conflicts, public health and safety, 

resource protection, and to maintain these front country to rural settings.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS & ALLOWABLE USE DECISIONS

Identify management action and allowable use decisions for R&VS and other programs necessary to: facilitate 

visitor participation in the identified outdoor recreation activities; maintain particular recreation setting 

characteristics; address visitor health and safety, resource protection, and use and user conflicts; and, address the 

type(s), activities, and locations where special recreation permits would or would not be issued.

Physical

Remoteness:

Rural Country.

The RMZ is surrounded by county roads, and displays tracks from heavy off-road use. The area is on or near 

primary highways, but still within a rural area.

Naturalness:

Rural Country.

The area’s natural setting from the intense off-road use as well as the industrial activities is culturally modified to the 

point that it is dominant to the sensitive travel route observer, Pedestrians or other slow moving observers are 

constantly within view of culturally changed landscape.

Facilities and Structures:

Rural Country.

Paved, improved, and/or primitive roads/highways dominate the landscape. Facilities and structures are readily 

apparent and may range from scattered to small dominant clusters.

Social

Contacts and Group Size:

Middle Country settings.

Usually 7-14 encounters/day off travel routes (e.g., staging areas), and 15-29 encounters/day en route. Usually 

group size is small to moderate.

Operational

Mechanized Use:

Middle Country.

4-wheel drive vehicles, ATVs, dirt bikes, in addition to nonmotorized mechanized use.

Management Controls and Visitor Services:

Rural Country.

On site controls and services are obvious and numerous. Largely harmonize with the man-made environment 

(dominantly from the oil and gas extraction activities and the ROW projects).

IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS
Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

Worland Approved RMP 433

Implementation decisions are actions to achieve or implement land use plan decisions. Implementation decisions 

include: management, administration, information and education and monitoring.

Information and Education

Develop visitor orientation signs at trailheads and parking areas on user ethics, nonnative invasive 

weed species found within the area, other important land uses within the area, and user safety.

Provide stewardship information to help preserve the special landscape character.

Provide for a map with designated routes, trailheads, docking stations, designated areas tailored for 

different degrees of riding experience (novice areas to experienced areas).

Make available for special educational programs such as CORE and Take it Outside!

Monitoring

Solicit partnerships and cooperative agreements to: Monitor outcome attainment and 

preferences through customer assessments (focus group interviews or visitor studies). 

Monitor recreation setting condition through on-site patrols.

Vehicle counters with routine surveys and observation. 

Visitor reports of crowding.

If trends show that use is over acceptable limits, additional action may be considered, such as encouraging use on 

other trails or areas or limiting carrying capacity at trailheads.

Management

Develop areas for novice riders to highly experienced riders with coordinated effort through other 

entities such as local OHV groups, and onsite oil and gas companies.

Develop trailheads containing loading dock stations, kiosks, comfort stations, and adequate parking. 

Signs present at key access points, but limited within the ERMA.

Visitor orientation materials (kiosks and signs) at trailheads and parking areas.

Administrative
Appendix J Recreation Management 

Access and Easements September 2015

434 Worland Approved RMP

Visual Resource Management:

Manage visual resources according to other adjacent resource program prescriptions.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

Motorized use limited to existing roads and trails.

Lands and Realty:

Open to all ROW (including alternative energy realty actions). 

Pursue legal and physical access to maximize recreational opportunities.

Minerals:

Open to oil and gas, to mineral entry and, other mineral leasing subject to standard protection measures.

Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

Allow surface-disturbing activities such as geophysical exploration (including casual use), salable 

minerals exploration and development, and construction activities.

(including those related to development of recreation facilities or wildlife)

Special Recreation Permits:

SRPs will be issued as a discretionary action. Issue SRPs for a wide variety of uses, that 

are consistent with resource/program objectives, and within budgetary/workload constraints. 

Cost recovery procedures for issuing SRPs would be applied where appropriate.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on available SRPs may be developed and implemented.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on SRP group numbers may be developed and implemented.

To assist in the determination of whether an organized group activity or event would require an SRP, factors such as 

the following may be considered: resource concerns, user conflicts, need for monitoring, health and safety concerns, 

risk of damage to federal facilities or property. The following guidelines will be used in determining SRP status:

1-15 participants – No SRP required, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed.

16-30 participants – Letter of Agreement, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed. 

Over 30 participants – SRP required.

Partners:

Surrounding communities including but not limited to Worland, Thermopolis, Manderson, Basin, and Greybull; 

Wyoming State Trails Program, surrounding land users and industries, NOHVCC, Sagehoppers, and other 

interested groups and OHV clubs.

Other Administration:

Limit the use of signing or other administrative controls unless and until monitoring supports an 

increase in education, signing, or enforcement to meet public recreation objectives for the area. 

Glass containers and pallets are prohibited.

Horse Pasture SRMA

SRMAs are administrative units where the existing or proposed recreation opportunities and recreation setting 

characteristics are recognized for their unique value, importance, and/or distinctiveness; especially compared to other 

areas used for recreation. For each SRMA: establish objective decisions, describe recreation setting characteristics, 

identify management actions and allowable use decisions and, if necessary, identify implementationdecisions.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Briefly describe the rationale for designating the SRMA including the unique value, importance or distinctiveness 

of the area. This documents the rationale for consideration of the SRMA in the planning process and, if selected, 

designation of the SRMA in the record of decision.

The Horse Pasture SRMA is 144 acres of BLM-administered public land nestled along the foothills of Rattlesnake 

Ridge and surrounded by agriculture uses. This area was once used as an oil and gas staging area, complete with 

residential buildings. Currently, in coordination with Devon Energy Corporation, the BLM is in the process of 

reclaiming the area to pre-development landscape. The area is used by the community of Worland for uses such as 

walking, hunting (bird and big game), and nature viewing.

SRMA/RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONE (RMZ) OBJECTIVE(S) DECISIONS

SRMAs may be subdivided into RMZs with discrete objectives. SRMA/RMZ objectives must define the specific 

recreation opportunities (i.e., activities, experiences and benefits derived from those experiences) which become the 

focus of Recreation and Visitor Services (R&VS) management.
Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

Worland Approved RMP 435

Objective Statement:

Manage the Horse Pasture SRMA for nonmotorized recreationists to engage in photography, hunting, nature 

viewing, and sightseeing so that they report realizing a “moderate” level of recreation experience and benefit 

outcomes in these back to middle country settings.

Activities:

Hiking, wildlife viewing, nature viewing, photography, hunting (bird and big game), dog interaction (walking, 

training, hunting, etc.).

Experiences:

Enjoy going exploring on my/our own. 

Learn.

Savoring the total sensory – sight, sound, and smell – experience of a natural landscape. 

Enjoy the closeness of family.

Learning more about things here.

Enjoy having easy access to natural landscapes.

Benefits:

Enhanced awareness and understanding of nature.

Greater sensitivity to/awareness of outdoor aesthetics, nature’s art and its elegance. 

Increased appreciation of area’s cultural history.

Improved mental well-being.

Heightened sense of satisfaction with our area as a place to live.

Greater community involvement in recreation and other land use decisions. 

Increased desirability as a place to live or retire.

Maintenance of community’s distinctive recreation/tourism market niche or character.

RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTIC (RSC) DESCRIPTIONS

Describe the physical, social and operational recreation setting qualities to be maintained or enhanced.
Appendix J Recreation Management 

Access and Easements September 2015

436 Worland Approved RMP

Physical

Remoteness:

Front Country.

The south boundary is along an improved road used for agricultural purpose. Some primitive routes exist within the 

area from past management. Within the SRMA, the desired remoteness setting will be middle country, the edge 

will, by default, be front country.

Naturalness:

Back Country.

Natural setting may have subtle modifications but not draw the attention of the casual observer wandering 

through the area.

Facilities and Structures:

Back Country.

Primitive motorized routes and nonmotorized trails may exist. Facilities and structures are rare and often 

accessible via unimproved routes.

Social

Contacts and Group Size:

Back Country.

Usually up to 6 encounters/day off travel routes, and up to 15 encounters/day on trails. Usually group size is 

small. Most of the time, social settings will reflect primitive definition.

Operational

Mechanized Use:

Back Country.

Manage the SRMA for mountain bikes perhaps other mechanized use but all is nonmotorized. The fringes 

will be managed for 4-wheel drive vehicles, ATVs, dirt bikes, or snowmobiles in addition to nonmotorized 

mechanized use so as to maintain current land uses.

Management Controls and Visitor Services:

Back Country.

On site controls and services are present but subtle.

Personnel periodic. Rules clearly posted with some restrictions. Periodic enforcement, with an increase in 

BLM presence during big game hunting season.

IMPLEMENTING DECISIONS

Implementation decisions are actions to achieve or implement land use plan decisions. Implementation decisions 

include: management, administration, information and education and monitoring.

Information and Education

Develop interpretive signs and visitor orientation materials at trailheads and parking areas on user ethics, 

nonnative invasive weed species found within the area, history, hunting, and other current resource programs. 

Provide stewardship information to help preserve the special landscape character.

Provide for a map with designated roads, trailheads, trails.

Make available for special outdoor educational programs such as CORE and Take it Outside!

Monitoring

Solicit partnerships and cooperative agreements to: Monitor outcome attainment and preferences through customer 

assessments (focus group interviews or visitor studies), Monitor recreation setting condition through on-site patrols. 

Vehicle counters with routine surveys and observation.

Visitor reports of crowding.

Informal visitor surveys and formal focus groups as funding allow.

Management
Appendix J Recreation Management

September 2015 Access and Easements

Worland Approved RMP 437

Utilize adaptive management techniques to provide identified recreation opportunities (activities, 

experiences, and benefits) and reach desired future setting conditions.

If need arrives, develop interpretive/historic nature trail within the Horse Pasture.

Develop trailhead at western edge of SRMA. Facilities will include, but not limited to visitor orientation materials, 

adequate parking, comfort station, and other necessary facilities identified throughout the life of the plan.

Signs present at key access points, but limited within the SRMA, with exception to nature trail. 

Interpretive signs at trailhead, and along trail.

Administrative

Visual Resource Management:

Class II.

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management:

Motorized use within the SRMA is limited to designated roads and trails.

Lands and Realty:

ROW avoidance area.

Alternative energy avoidance area for realty actions.

Minerals:

Do not pursue withdraw from appropriation under the mining laws for lands within the Horse Pasture SRMA.

Oil and Gas Leasing and Other Surface-Disturbing Activities:

Avoid surface-disturbing activities such as geophysical exploration, salable minerals exploration and developments, 

and construction activities (except those related to development of recreation facilities or wildlife habitat).

Apply a CSU stipulation for the Horse Pasture SRMA.

Special Recreation Permits:

SRPs will be issued as a discretionary action. Issue SRPs for a wide variety of uses, that 

are consistent with resource/program objectives, and within budgetary/workload constraints. 

Cost recovery procedures for issuing SRPs would be applied where appropriate.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on available SRPs may be developed and implemented.

If circumstances warrant, limitations on SRP group numbers may be developed and implemented.

To assist in the determination of whether an organized group activity or event would require an SRP, factors such as 

the following may be considered: resource concerns, user conflicts, need for monitoring, health and safety concerns, 

risk of damage to federal facilities or property. The following guidelines will be used in determining SRP status:

1-15 participants – No SRP required, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed.

16-30 participants – Letter of Agreement, unless otherwise determined that an SRP will be needed. 

Over 30 participants – SRP required.

Partners:

Community of Worland, Wyoming State Trails Program, Wyoming Game and Fish, Devon Energy Corporation, and 

other interested groups.

Other Administration:

Limit the use of signing or other administrative controls unless and until monitoring supports an increase in 

education, signing, or enforcement to meet public recreation objectives for the area.
This page intentionally 

left blank
Worland Approved RMP 439

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

Appendix K. Biological Opinion
440 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 441

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
442 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 443

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
444 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 445

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
446 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 447

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
448 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 449

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
450 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 451

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
452 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 453

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
454 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 455

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
456 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 457

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
458 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 459

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
460 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 461

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
462 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 463

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
464 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 465

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
466 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 467

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
468 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 469

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
470 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 471

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
472 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 473

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
474 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 475

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
476 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 477

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
478 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 479

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
480 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 481

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
482 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 483

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
484 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 485

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
486 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 487

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
488 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 489

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
490 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 491

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
492 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 493

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
494 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 495

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
496 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 497

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
498 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 499

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
500 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 501

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
502 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 503

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
504 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 505

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
506 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 507

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
508 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 509

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
510 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

Worland Approved RMP 511
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

512 Worland Approved RMP
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

Worland Approved RMP 513
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

514 Worland Approved RMP
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

Worland Approved RMP 515
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

516 Worland Approved RMP
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

Worland Approved RMP 517
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

518 Worland Approved RMP
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

Worland Approved RMP 519
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

520 Worland Approved RMP
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

Worland Approved RMP 521
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

522 Worland Approved RMP
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

Worland Approved RMP 523
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

524 Worland Approved RMP
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

Worland Approved RMP 525
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

526 Worland Approved RMP
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

Worland Approved RMP 527
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

528 Worland Approved RMP
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

Worland Approved RMP 529
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

530 Worland Approved RMP
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

Worland Approved RMP 531
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

532 Worland Approved RMP
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

Worland Approved RMP 533
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

534 Worland Approved RMP
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

Worland Approved RMP 535
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

536 Worland Approved RMP
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

Worland Approved RMP 537
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

538 Worland Approved RMP
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

Worland Approved RMP 539
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

540 Worland Approved RMP
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

Worland Approved RMP 541
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

542 Worland Approved RMP
Appendix K Biological Opinion September 2015

Worland Approved RMP 543
This page intentionally 

left blank
Worland Approved RMP 545

Appendix L. Implementation 

L.1. General

Implementation of the Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan (RMP) will require continued 

involvement of cooperating agencies, both in terms of funding and time, and continued public 

participation. This appendix describes the basic elements of implementing the Bighorn Basin 

RMP.

L.2. Implementation Working Group

To ensure overall coordination, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the cooperating agencies 

should meet at least yearly to provide support for the implementation prioritization, review 

recommendations for changes to implementation strategies and review monitoring evaluation 

results. This group is called the Implementation Working Group. Implementation Working 

Groups will serve in a recommending capacity as the BLM cannot relinquish its decision-making 

authority or responsibility. A single Implementation Working Group may serve both the Worland 

and Cody field offices, or an Implementation Working Group may be convened for each field 

office. All Implementation Working Group meetings will be open to the public, and announced 

on the BLM website.

The Implementation Working Group will ensure implementation is orderly and without 

duplication or confusion. The Implementation Working Group will look at interdisciplinary 

and interagency implementation rather than resource-by-resource implementation to make

recommendations regarding the best use of funding and personnel from both cooperating agencies 

and the BLM. 

L.3. Implementation Tracking Database 

A database has been developed the Worland Field Office to track the budget, monitoring, and 

implementation actions. Once the database has been populated, it will require continual 

maintenance and updates to accurately track the implementation process. Information will be 

collected based on quarterly performance evaluation accomplishment reporting, and complete 

fiscal year reports will be published with analysis on the BLM website by December 31 of 

each calendar year.

L.4. Monitoring Working Group

To ensure that monitoring methods are in place, a Monitoring Working Group will be assembled 

to develop an overall monitoring plan, utilizing existing monitoring information from the various 

members of the Implementation Working Group. The team’s guidance and direction will be 

provided through Appendix H, Monitoring and Evaluation (p. 365). The BLM is responsible to 

apply monitoring procedures and protocols that are based on BLM policies, field office priorities 

and available funding. The BLM intends to monitor the implementation of the entire RMP as

a separate process from monitoring the impacts. The appropriate field manager will make final 

decisions on the monitoring plans, monitoring priorities, and whether or not monitoring data 

collected by other agencies meets the specific needs of the BLM. The BLM Field Manager will 

September 2015

Appendix L Implementation

General
546 Worland Approved RMP

assess the monitoring needs and consider additions or changes proposed by the Monitoring 

Working Group. 

Since some monitoring data is being collected and provided by other federal and state agencies to 

the extent of their specific missions and expertise, a system will be established to regularly collect 

and coordinate this data. The team will also be responsible for collecting data to determine if the 

implemented actions are meeting stated goals and objectives or desired outcomes.

L.5. Activity Plan Working Groups

Activity Plan Working Groups (APWGs) consisting of local, state, and federal governments will 

be formed for new projects when circumstances dictate. Cooperating agencies in these APWGs 

will assist the BLM in developing alternatives and preparing environmental analyses. APWGs 

will serve in a recommending capacity as the BLM cannot relinquish its decision-making authority 

or responsibility. As an example, travel management plans would be developed with an APWG.

The objectives of APWGs include the following: 

● Minimizing analysis and decision making controversy by being proactive rather than reactive 

to public land use and resource conflicts.

● Providing effective, cost-efficient, and collaboratively-based solutions to resource conflicts.

● Improving resource conditions by recommending practices appropriate to specialsituations.

● Streamlining public land authorizations, increasing implementation flexibility, and notifying 

public land users of required practices.

● All APWG meetings where recommendations are made to the BLM will be open to the 

public, and will provide for specific and helpful public involvement. This includes providing 

web-based information to the public prior to any APWG meetings; such that members of the 

public can provide input to the working session, both early and mid-way through the scheduled 

meetings.

L.6. Public Involvement

A website where the public can quickly and easily access data concerning implementation 

should be developed and kept current. Creating this website and maintaining it through the 

implementation cycle will be a vital part of implementation success. The public is welcome to 

provide implementation comments to the BLM any time during the cycle, but schedules for 

implementation planning decisions will be posted so the public can make timely comments. All 

APWG meetings where recommendations are made to the BLM will be open to the public, and 

will provide for specific and helpful public involvement. This includes providing web-based 

information to the public prior to any APWG meetings; such that members of the public can 

provide input to the working session, both early and mid-way through the scheduled meetings. 

Appendix L Implementation

Activity Plan Working Groups September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 547

Appendix M. Bighorn Basin Air Resource 

Management Plan 

M.1. Introduction

M.1.1. Background 

Preparation of the Analysis of the Management Situation in 2008 disclosed monitoring data 

within and adjacent to the Bighorn Basin Planning Area is limited. Concern arose over the 

need to establish background concentrations and to have monitoring in place prior to increased 

development. 

The need for establishing background concentrations was not based on concern over existing air 

quality, but rather to provide adequate monitoring to characterize changes over time. Table M.1,

“Applicable National and State Primary Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants and Baseline

Representative Concentrations for the Planning Area” (p. 548) is an overview of the applicable 

primary Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) and baseline representative maximum pollutant concentrations measured in 

and at sites near the Planning Area. These representative concentrations can be compared with 

the applicable WAAQS and NAAQS to indicate the status of recent air quality conditions within 

the Planning Area relative to the standards. 

The examination of these data indicates that the current air quality for criteria pollutants in the 

Planning Area is considered good overall. Based upon measurements taken at the North Absaroka 

IMPROVE site (Figure M.1, “Visibility – Standard Visual Range (SVR, miles) for the North

Absaroka, Wyoming, IMPROVE Site” (p. 549)) and the Cloud Peak IMPROVE site (Figure M.2,

“Visibility – Standard Visual Range (SVR, miles) for the Cloud Peak, Wyoming, IMPROVE

Site” (p. 549)), visibility in the Planning Area is considered excellent. 

To address the monitoring data limitation at the land use planning level, the BLM and cooperating 

agencies developed Management Action 1002 to establish a monitoring network to provide 

additional data for describing background concentrations. 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) established a monitoring site approximately 25 miles 

north of Worland in Big Horn County, known as the Basin site. The purpose of this station is to 

provide a general indicator of existing air quality and long term trends in air quality but is not 

intended for NAAQS compliance. 

The emissions projected in the emissions calculations in Appendix U of the Proposed Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (available on the 

Bighorn Basin RMP website) have potential to negatively impact visibility and air quality

in Bridger, Fitzpatrick, North Absaroka, and Washakie Wilderness Areas and Yellowstone 

National Park depending upon the temporal and spatial distribution of development. This 

emission inventory was compiled for the Planning Area to determine the relative magnitude 

of total air pollutant emissions to compare emissions and associated impacts between the

alternatives. The estimated levels of emissions for each alternative are summarized in Table M.2,

“Total Annual Emissions Summary for BLM Activities within the Bighorn Basin Planning

Area” (p. 550). Projected emissions are similar to those of the base year, 2008, as shown in

Appendix M Bighorn Basin Air Resource

Management Plan

September 2015 Introduction
548 Worland Approved RMP

Table M.2, “Total Annual Emissions Summary for BLM Activities within the Bighorn Basin

Planning Area” (p. 550) and Table M.3, “Percent Change in Emissions Compared to Base Year

2008” (p. 550). The emission inventory also revealed that emissions would primarily result 

from mineral development and production. 

Table M.1. Applicable National and State Primary Air Quality Standards for Criteria 

Pollutants and Baseline Representative Concentrations for the Planning Area

Pollutant

Averaging Time

NAAQS WAAQS Representative 

Concentrations

(ppm) (ppb) (μg/m3) (ppm) (ppb) (μg/m3) (ppm) (ppb) (μg/m3)

Carbon 

Monoxide

1 hour1 35 35,000 40,000 35 35,000 40,000 1.7 1,730 1,979

8 hour1 9 9,000 10,000 9 9,000 10,000 0.8 814 931

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 hour 2 0.10 100 189 0.10 100 189 0.014 14 26.4

Annual3 

(Arithmetic 

Mean)

0.053 53 100 0.053 53 100 0.00168 1.68 2.9

Ozone 8 hour4 0.075 75 147 0.075 75 147 0.062 62 121

PM10

24 hour5 N/A N/A 150 N/A N/A 150 N/A N/A 78

Annual6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A 11

PM2.5

24 hour7 N/A N/A 35 N/A N/A 35 N/A N/A 5.0

Annual8 N/A N/A 12 N/A N/A 15 N/A N/A 1.8

Sulfur 

Dioxide10

1 hour9 0.075 75 197 0.075 75 197 0.033 33 86

1Not to be exceeded more than once per year. Data collected at Yellowstone National Park during 2005.

2To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 1-hour concentrations 

at each monitor within an area must not exceed 100 ppb. Thunder Basin data, 2009.

3Thunder Basin annual average for 2009.

4To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not 

exceed 75 ppb. Measured fourth highest concentration for 2009 for the Thunder Basin site. 

5Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. Maximum 24-hour 

average for 2009 at Cody SLAMS site.

6Annual average for 2009 for Cody SLAMS site.

7To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at 

each population-oriented monitor in an area must not exceed 35 μg/m3. Maximum 24-hour

average for 2009 for the North Absaroka IMPROVE site.

8To attain thisstandard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrationsfrom single or multiple 

community-oriented monitors must not exceed 12.0 μg/m3. Annual average for 2009 for the North Absaroka site. 

9To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 1-hour concentrations at

each monitor within an area must not exceed 75 ppb.

10The SO2 value is from the Wyoming DEQ Casper monitor, located in Natrona County and is the 3-year average 

of the 98th percentile of 1-hour concentrations measured for 2011, 2012, and 2013. Although not located in the 

Bighorn Basin, this is the closest monitor with available recent data.

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter ppb parts perbillion

N/A Not Applicable ppm parts per million

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards SLAMS State and Local Air Monitoring Site 

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 WAAQS Wyoming Ambient Air QualityStandards 

microns in diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in 

diameter

Appendix M Bighorn Basin Air Resource 

Management Plan

Background September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 549

Figure M.1. Visibility – Standard Visual Range (SVR, miles) for the North Absaroka, 

Wyoming, IMPROVE Site 

Figure M.2. Visibility – Standard Visual Range (SVR, miles) for the Cloud Peak, Wyoming, 

IMPROVE Site

September 2015

Appendix M Bighorn Basin Air Resource

Management Plan

Background
550 Worland Approved RMP

Table M.2. Total Annual Emissions Summary for BLM Activities within the Bighorn Basin 

Planning Area

Summary 

Year

Emissions (tons per year)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAP

2018 Total 4,056 697 709 29 4,458 1,627 89

2027 Total 3,973 679 744 30 4,234 1,390 95

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

CO carbon monoxide

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

NOx nitrogen oxides

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 

SOx sulfur oxides

VOC volatile organic compound

Table M.3. Percent Change in Emissions Compared to Base Year 2008 

Summary 

Year

Percent Change in Emissions (tons per year)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAP

2018 Total 5% 4% -2% 4% 4% -11% 5%

% percent PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 

SOx sulfur oxides

VOC volatile organic compound

CO carbon monoxide

HAP hazardous air pollutant

NOx nitrogen oxides

In June 2011, Memorandum of Understanding among the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. 

Department of Interior and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regarding Air Quality 

Analyses and Mitigation for Federal Oil and Gas Decisions Through the National Environmental 

Policy Act Process (MOU) was signed. This MOU outlines how to protect air quality and

air quality related values, such as visibility and Class I areas, while allowing for oil and gas 

development on federally managed lands. 

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) comments on the Draft Resource Management 

Plan (RMP) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), included “the EPA believes that 

the ‘level of concern’ that would warrant modeling under Management Action 1005 (contained in 

the Draft RMP) has already been reached.” This concern is based on the level of emissions from 

existing activity disclosed in the Draft EIS and the proximity of proposed leasing areas to five 

Federal Class I areas, including Bridger, Fitzpatrick, North Absaroka, and Washakie Wilderness 

Areas and Yellowstone National Park.

Emissions from future activities have potential to negatively impact visibility and air quality in 

the Class I areas depending upon the temporal and spatial distribution of development. 

M.1.2. Purpose

The purpose of this Air Resources Management Plan (ARMP) is to further clarify Physical 

Resources – Air Quality goals, objectives, and management actions set forth in Table 3.2, “1000

PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – Air Quality” (p. 50). This ARMP describes air resources 

management; authorization of activities that have the potential to adversely impact air resources 

within the Planning Area; acknowledges areas where data is incomplete or difficult to obtain; 

sets a plan to obtain additional information; and outlines specific informational requirements and 

mitigation measures that may apply to projects that have the potential to generate air emissions 

and adversely affect air resources in the Planning Area.

Appendix M Bighorn Basin Air Resource 

Management Plan

Purpose September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 551

This ARMP may be modified as necessary to comply with law, regulation, and policy and to 

address new information and changing circumstances. Amendment of the RMP is necessary to 

change the goals, objectives or management actions set forth in Table 3.2, “1000 PHYSICAL

RESOURCES (PR) – Air Quality” (p. 50) while change to implementation, including this ARMP, 

may be made without Amending the RMP. 

M.1.3. Characterization of Air Resources in the Environmental 

Impact Statement 

M.1.3.1. Emissions Inventory for Land Use Planning

An air emissions inventory was compiled for the Planning Area to determine the relative 

magnitude of total air pollutant emissions and to compare emissions between alternatives. This 

emissions inventory is summarized in Appendix U of the Bighorn Basin Proposed RMP and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (available on the Bighorn Basin RMP website). 

Emissions were calculated using assumptions about the likelihood of potential future activities 

occurring under each alternative which are found in Appendix T of the Bighorn Basin Proposed 

RMP and Final EIS (available on the Bighorn Basin RMP website). As a result, the compiled air 

emissions inventory represents a comparison of emissions of air pollutants based on best available 

but speculative information for future development projections. 

The emissions inventory is valuable for contrasting the impact of land use allocations on air 

resources among alternatives and useful for identifying those activities that are likely to be major 

contributors of emissions. 

The air emissions inventory supports two major conclusions: 1) there is not a substantial 

difference in total air emissions among alternatives (Table 4-2 of the Bighorn Basin Proposed 

RMP and Final EIS), and 2) oil and gas development activities and mining are major contributors 

to air emissions.

M.1.3.2. Class I Areas

Class I areas in or near the Planning Area are Yellowstone National Park, North Absaroka 

Wilderness Area, Washakie Wilderness Area, Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area, and Bridger 

Wilderness Area. Visibility estimates for the North Absaroka site (western boundary of the 

Planning Area) and the Cloud Peak site (eastern boundary of the Planning Area) are shown 

in Figures 3-12 and 3-13 of the Final EIS, respectively. The data from these two monitoring 

locations indicate excellent visibility.

M.2. Air Resources Management Plan

M.2.1. Resource Inventory and Characterization

A characterization of air quality conditions in Class I areas in the vicinity of the Planning Area 

will be conducted to measure progress towards meeting the Air Quality goals and objectives 

(Table 3.2, “1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – Air Quality” (p. 50)). BLM will conduct 

this characterization in partnership with federal and state agencies with responsibility for 

Appendix M Bighorn Basin Air Resource

Management Plan 

Characterization of Air Resources in the

September 2015 Environmental Impact Statement
552 Worland Approved RMP

managing air quality in Class I areas, including the Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality (DEQ), EPA, Forest Service and National Park Service, as soon as possible subject to 

funding and staffing levels. 

This Class I area characterization will consist of two separate parts. Part I will be compilation 

of existing air quality data on the Class I area as provided and analyzed by partnering agencies. 

Part II will consist of a regional modeling analysis to characterize air quality in the Class I areas 

listed in Section M.1.1, “Background” (p. 547). This modeling would be conducted either 1) as 

part of a specific development project air impact analysis being conducted by BLM for a NEPA 

analysis or 2) as part of an interagency regional modeling analysis that includes the Planning 

Area. With this modeling, the BLM could effectively predict direct Bighorn Basin emissions 

impacts to nearby Class I areas. Information from other modeling efforts and monitoring data 

will also be used to inform the Class I characterization. Details of this modeling are presented in 

Section M.2.4, “Modeling” (p. 554). 

Until such time as both parts of the Class I characterization are completed Applications for 

Permit to Drill (APDs), field development proposals, and mining plans of operation, will include 

an emissions inventory. The emissions inventory will quantify emissions of regulated air 

pollutants from all sources related to the proposed project, emissions impacting Class I areas, 

including fugitive emissions and greenhouse gas emissions, estimated for each year for the life 

of the project. Additional information on permitting and emission inventories is provided in 

Section M.2.2, “Permitting” (p. 552) and Section M.2.5, “Mitigation” (p. 554). 

Based upon the findings of the Class I characterization, and as provided for by law and consistent 

with lease rights and obligations, BLM will ensure implementation of reasonable mitigation, 

control measures and design features through appropriate mechanisms, which may include lease 

stipulations and conditions of approval, notices to lessees, and permit terms and conditions (see 

Section M.2.2, “Permitting” (p. 552) and Section M.2.5, “Mitigation” (p. 554). 

M.2.2. Permitting

The BLM has the authority and responsibility under the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act to manage public lands in a manner that will protect the quality of air and atmospheric values. 

Therefore, BLM may manage the pace, place, density, and intensity of leasing and development 

to meet air quality goals.

The BLM will, prior to authorization, consider the magnitude of potential air emissions from the 

project or activity, existing air quality conditions, proximity to Class I areas, and issues identified 

during project scoping to identify pollutants of concern and to determine the appropriate level of 

air analysis to be conducted for the project. 

The BLM will require an emissions inventory, as set forth in the MOU. The MOU states “As 

early as possible in its planning process, the Lead Agency will identify the reasonably foreseeable 

number of oil or gas wells that can be expressed as a range, expected to be located within the 

Bighorn Basin Planning Area. Existing reasonably foreseeable development scenarios can be 

used to identify the number of wells.” The BLM may require an emissions inventory for mineral 

development projects (such as mining operations and individual applications for permit to drill) 

and may require project specific air quality modeling (see Management Action 1006) depending 

on project characteristics, proximity to a federally mandated Class I area, sensitive Class II

area, or population center, location within a non-attainment or maintenance area, meteorological

Appendix M Bighorn Basin Air Resource 

Management Plan

Permitting September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 553

or geographic conditions, existing air quality conditions, magnitude of existing development in 

the area, or issues identified during project scoping. The emissions inventory will quantify 

emissions of regulated air pollutants from all sources related to the proposed project, emissions 

impacting Class I areas, including fugitive emissions and greenhouse gas emissions, estimated 

for each year for the life of the project. BLM will use this estimated emissions inventory

to identify pollutants of concern and to determine the appropriate level of air analysis to be 

conducted for the proposed project. This information will inform monitoring (see Section M.2.3,

“Monitoring” (p. 553)), modeling (see Section M.2.4, “Modeling” (p. 554)) and mitigation

(see Section M.2.5, “Mitigation” (p. 554)).

The BLM has the responsibility to implement the decisions of the RMP in a manner that protects 

air quality. BLM also must recognize valid and existing leasing rights. The BLM can require 

specific actions and measures necessary to protect air quality in response to adverse impacts at the 

project permitting stage (Management Action 1003). 

BLM will consider applying mitigation to emissions sources not otherwise regulated by Wyoming 

DEQ for mineral development projects where an air quality impact analysis determines there are 

or will likely be future impacts above acceptable levels, including impacts to Class I areas.

Mitigation may include reduction in the pace or scale of development. 

Until such time as both phases of the Class I area characterization are completed, the BLM will 

require the following in addition to those items listed above: 

1. The proponent of a project will be required to minimize air pollutant emissions by complying 

with all applicable state and federal regulations (including application of best available 

control technology) and may be required to apply mitigation such as best management 

practices, and other control technologies or strategies identified by the BLM or Wyoming 

DEQ in accordance with delegated regulatory authority. 

2. The proponent of a mineral development project that has the potential to emit any regulated 

air pollutant will be required to provide a detailed description of operator committed 

measures to reduce project related air pollutant emissions including greenhouse gases and 

fugitive dust. Project proponents for oil and gas development projects should refer to

Table M.4, “Sample Emission Reduction Strategies for Oil and Gas Development” (p. 556) as 

a reference for potential mitigation technologies and strategies. The list is not intended to 

preclude the use of other effective air pollution control technologies that may be proposed. 

Details of the mitigation measure would be submitted by the applicant and enforced as a 

condition of the BLM-issued authorization. 

3. The BLM may require the proponent of other projects to comply with measures 1 and 2 

above, depending on project characteristics, proximity to a federally mandated Class I 

area, sensitive Class II area, or population centers, location within a non-attainment or 

maintenance area, meteorological or geographic conditions, existing air quality conditions, 

magnitude of existing development in the area, or issues identified during project scoping. 

M.2.3. Monitoring

As part of a comprehensive air management plan for the Planning Area, BLM will work 

cooperatively with federal and state agencies with responsibility for managing air resources to 

determine, characterize, and track air resource conditions. (Management Action 1004). 

Appendix M Bighorn Basin Air Resource

Management Plan

September 2015 Monitoring
554 Worland Approved RMP

The BLM may require project proponents to conduct air monitoring. The requirement for 

monitoring will be based on the absence of existing monitoring; existing air quality conditions; 

magnitude of potential air emissions from the project or activity; magnitude of existing emission 

sources in the area; proximity to a federally mandated Class I area, sensitive Class II area, or 

population center; location within a non-attainment or maintenance area; meteorological or 

geographic conditions; project duration; or issues identified during project scoping. The project 

proponent will be responsible for siting, installing, operating, and maintaining any required 

air monitoring.

The BLM will support and participate in regional monitoring efforts to meet Management Action 

1002 which reads as follows: 

“Define a criteria pollutant and air quality related values monitoring strategy and cooperatively 

establish a monitoring network by creating a method for siting air quality monitors in order to 

provide additional data for describing background concentrations.” 

M.2.4. Modeling

Air dispersion and photochemical grid models are useful tools for predicting project specific 

impacts to air quality, predicting the potential effectiveness of control measures and strategies, 

and for predicting trends in regional concentrations of some air pollutants. 

BLM may require project proponents to conduct air quality modeling based on the absence of 

sufficient data to ensure compliance with laws regulations or to determine the effectiveness 

of mitigation options. The requirement for modeling will follow the MOU and will be based 

on existing air quality conditions; magnitude of potential air emissions from the project or

activity; magnitude of existing emission sources in the area; proximity to a federally mandated 

Class I area, sensitive Class II area, an area expected to exceed a NAAQS or PSD increment or 

population center; location within a non-attainment or maintenance area; meteorological or 

geographic conditions; project duration; or issues identified during project scoping (Management 

Action 1006). 

BLM will support and participate in regional modeling efforts through multi-state and/or 

multi-agency organizations such as Western Governors’ Association – Western Regional Air 

Partnership (WRAP), the Federal Leadership Forum (FLF), and Wyoming DEQ’s Ozone 

Technical Forum (OTF). If results from an interagency, regional modeling study are used to 

evaluate impacts within the Bighorn Basin, BLM will ensure that direct emissions from BLM’s 

management actions within the region are included in the study. This model would predict direct 

Bighorn Basin emissions impacts to nearby Class I areas and would satisfy the Air Resources 

Management Plan Class I Characterization part II as set forth in Section M.2.1, “Resource

Inventory and Characterization” (p. 551), above. 

M.2.5. Mitigation 

Many of the activities that BLM authorizes, permits, or allows generate air pollutant emissions 

that have the potential to adversely impact air quality. The primary mechanism to reduce air 

quality impacts is to reduce emissions (mitigation).

BLM will require additional air emission control measures and strategies within its regulatory 

authority and in consultation with federal and state agencies with responsibility for managing air 

Appendix M Bighorn Basin Air Resource 

Management Plan

Modeling September 2015
Worland Approved RMP 555

Appendix M Bighorn Basin Air Resource

Management Plan 

September 2015 Contingency Plans

resourcesif proposed or committed measures are insufficient to achieve air quality goals(Goal PR: 

1 and Goal PR: 2) and objectives (PR:1.1, PR:1.2, PR:2.1, PR2.2) and Management Action 1003. 

The proponent of a project will be required to minimize air pollutant emissions by complying 

with all applicable state and federal regulations (including application of best available control 

technology) and may be required to apply mitigation including but not limited to best management 

practices, and other control technologies or strategies identified by the BLM or Wyoming DEQ in 

accordance with delegated regulatory authority (Management Action 1003). 

The proponent of a project will demonstrate regard for air resources and will demonstrate 

consideration of measures to reduce emissions to achieve Management Action 1003. A project 

proponent will be required to identify operator-committed measures in its proposal. Example, 

mitigation strategies for oil and gas development activities are presented in Table M.4, “Sample

Emission Reduction Strategies for Oil and Gas Development” (p. 556). 

Development and implementation of appropriate protection measures is most effective at the 

project approval stage, because the proposed action has been defined in terms of temporal and 

spatial characteristics as well as development processes and procedures. This better defined 

information allows more precise identification of impacts to air quality which results in more 

specific impact analysis, and identification of effective mitigation. As part of the project approval 

process, the BLM will identify project-specific measures in response to identified impacts to air 

resources.

M.2.6. Contingency Plans

The BLM may require project proponents to submit a contingency plan that provides a strategy 

for reduction in emissions should observed effects or modeled impacts show state or federal 

standards or applicable thresholds for air quality related values may be exceeded. Specific 

operations and pollutants to be addressed in the contingency plan will be determined by BLM on 

a case-by-case basis taking into account existing air quality and pollutants emitted by the project. 

This is to ensure conformance with air quality goals and objectives. 

If observed effects or modeled impacts show state or federal regulatory standards or applicable 

thresholds for air quality related values may be exceeded, BLM may require mitigationmeasures 

to comply with such standards. Mitigation may include management of the pace, place, density 

and intensity of development or require smaller emission projects to demonstrate compliance 

with standards or applicable thresholds through quantitative air quality analysis. This is to 

ensure conformance with the air quality goals and objectives in Table 3.2, “1000 PHYSICAL

RESOURCES (PR) – Air Quality” (p. 50). 
556 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix M Bighorn Basin Air Resource 

Management Plan

Contingency Plans September 2015

Table M.4. Sample Emission Reduction Strategies for Oil and Gas Development

Emission Reduction 

Measure

Potential Environmental 

Benefits

Potential Environmental 

Liabilities Feasibility

Control Strategies for Drilling and Compression

Directional Drilling. Reduces construction 

related emissions (dust and 

vehicle and construction 

equipment emissions).

Decreases surface 

disturbance and vegetation 

impacts (dust and CO2 and 

nitrogen flux). Reduces 

habitat fragmentation.

Could result in higher air 

impacts in one area with 

longer sustained drilling 

times.

Depends on geological 

strata.

Improved engine 

technology (Tier 2 or 

better) for diesel drill rig 

engines.

Reduced NOx, PM, CO, and 

VOC emissions.

Dependent on availability 

of technology from engine 

manufacturers.

Selective Catalytic 

Reduction (SCR) for 

drill rig engines and/or 

compressors.

NOx emissions reduction, 

potential decreased 

formation of visibility 

impairing compounds 

and ozone. NOx control

efficiency of 95% achieved 

on drill rig engines. NOx

emission rate of 0.1 g/hp-hr 

achieved for compressors.

Potential NH3 emissions 

and formation of 

visibility impairing 

ammonium sulfate.

Regeneration/disposal 

of catalyst can produce 

hazardous waste.

Not applicable to 2-stroke 

engines.

Non-selective catalytic 

reduction (NSCR) for 

drill rig engines and/or 

compressors.

NOx emissions reduction, 

potential decreased 

formation of visibility 

impairing compounds, 

and ozone. NOx control 

efficiency of 80-90% 

achieved for drill rig

engines. NOx emission rate 

of 0.7 g/hp-hr achieved for 

compressor engines greater 

than 100 hp.

Regeneration/disposal 

of catalysts can produce 

hazardous waste.

Not applicable to lean burn 

or 2-stroke engines.

Natural Gas fired drill rig 

engines.

NOx emissions reduction, 

potential decreased 

formation of visibility 

impairing compounds, and 

ozone.

Requires onsite processing 

of field gas.

Electrification of 

compressors.

Decreased emissions at the 

source. Transfers emissions 

to more efficiently 

controlled source (i.e., 

electric generating unit).

Displaces emissions to 

electric generating unit.

Depends on availability 

of power and transmission 

lines.

Improved engine 

technology (Tier 2 or 

better) for all mobile and 

non-road diesel engines.

Reduced NOx, PM, CO, and 

VOC emissions.

Dependent on availability 

of technology from engine 

manufacturers.
Worland Approved RMP 557

Appendix M Bighorn Basin Air Resource

Management Plan 

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Emission Reduction 

Measure

Potential Environmental 

Benefits

Potential Environmental 

Liabilities Feasibility

Green (a.k.a. closed loop or 

flareless) completions.

Reduction in VOC and 

CH4 emissions. Reduces 

or eliminate flaring and 

venting and associated 

emissions. Reduces or 

eliminates open pits and 

associated evaporative 

emissions. Increased 

recovery of gas to pipeline 

rather than atmosphere.

Temporary increase in 

truck traffic and associated 

emissions.

Need adequate pressure 

and flow. Need

onsite infrastructure 

(tanks/dehydrator). 

Availability of sales line. 

Green completion permits 

required by WY BACT in 

some areas.

Green workovers Same as above. Same as above. Same as above.

Minimize/eliminate venting 

and/or use closed loop 

process where possible 

during "blow downs".

Same as above. Best Management Practices 

required by WY BACT.

Reclaim/remediate existing 

open pits, no new open pits.

Reduces VOC and GHG 

emissions. Reduces 

potential for soil and water 

contamination. Reduces 

odors.

May increase truck traffic 

and associated emissions.

Requires tank and/or 

pipeline infrastructure.

Electrification of wellhead 

compression/pumping.

Reduces local emissions 

of fossil fuel combustion

and transfers to more easily 

controlled source.

Displaces emissions to 

electric generating unit.

Depends on availability 

of power and transmission 

lines.

Wind (or other renewable) 

generated power for 

compressors.

Low or no emissions. May require construction 

of infrastructure. Visual 

impacts. Potential wildlife 

impacts.

Depends on availability 

of power and transmission 

lines.

Control Strategies Utilizing Centralized Systems

Centralization (or 

consolidation) of gas 

processing facilities 

(separation, dehydration, 

sweetening, etc.).

Reduces vehicle miles 

traveled (truck traffic) 

and associated emissions. 

Reduced VOC and GHG 

emissions from individual 

dehy/separator units.

Temporary increase in 

construction associated 

emissions. Higher potential 

for pipe leaks/groundwater 

impacts.

Requires pipeline 

infrastructure.

Liquids Gathering systems 

(for condensate and 

produced water).

Reduces vehicle miles 

traveled and associated 

emissions. Reduced VOC 

and GHG emissions

from tanks, truck 

loading/unloading, and 

multiple production 

facilities.

Temporary increase in 

construction associated 

emissions. Higher potential 

for pipe leaks/groundwater 

impacts.

Requires pipeline 

infrastructure.

Water and/or fracturing 

liquids delivery system.

Reduced long term truck 

traffic and associated 

emissions.

Temporary increase in 

construction associated 

emissions. Higher potential 

for pipe leaks/groundwater 

impacts.

Requires pipeline 

infrastructure. Not feasible 

for some terrain.

Control Strategies for Tanks, Separators, and Dehydrators

Eliminate use of open top 

tanks.

Reduced VOC and GHG 

emissions.

Required by WY BACT 

for produced water tanks in 

some areas.
558 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix M Bighorn Basin Air Resource 

Management Plan

Contingency Plans September 2015

Emission Reduction 

Measure

Potential Environmental 

Benefits

Potential Environmental 

Liabilities Feasibility

Capture and control of 

flashing emissions from all 

storage tanks and separation 

vessels with vapor recovery 

and/or thermal combustion 

units.

Reduces VOC and GHG 

emissions.

Pressure build up on 

older tanks can lead to 

uncontrolled rupture.

98% VOC control if ≥ 10 

TPY required statewide by 

WY BACT.

Capture and control of 

produced water tank 

emissions.

Reduces VOC and GHG 

emissions.

98% VOC control and no 

open top tanks required by 

WY DEQ in some areas.

Capture and control of 

dehydration equipment 

emissions with condensors, 

vapor recovery, and/or 

thermal combustion.

Reduces VOC, HAP, and 

GHG emissions.

Still vent condensors 

required and 98% VOC 

control if ≥ 8 TPY required 

statewide and in CDA

by WY BACT. All dehy 

emissions controlled at 

98% in JPAD (no 8 TPY

threshold).

Control Strategies for Misc. Fugitive VOC Emissions

Install and maintain low 

VOC emitting seals, valves, 

hatches on production 

equipment.

Reduces VOC and GHG 

emissions.

Initiate an equipment 

leak detection and repair 

program (including use 

of FLIR cameras, grab 

samples, organic vapor 

detection devices, visual 

inspection, etc.).

Reduction in VOC and 

GHG emissions.

Install or convert gas 

operated pneumatic 

devices to electric, 

solar, or instrument (or 

compressed) air driven 

devices/controllers.

Reduces VOC and GHG 

emissions.

Electric or compressed 

air driven operations 

can displace or increase 

combustion emissions.

Use "low" or "no bleed" 

gas operated pneumatic 

devices/controllers.

Reduces VOC and GHG 

emissions.

or closed loop required 

statewide by WY BACT.

Use closed loop system or 

thermal combustion for gas 

operated pneumatic pump 

emissions.

Reduces VOC and GHG 

emissions.

Required statewide by WY 

BACT (98% VOC control 

or closed loop).

Install or convert gas 

operated pneumatic 

pumps to electric, solar, or

instrument (or compressed) 

air driven pumps.

Reduces VOC and GHG 

emissions.

Electric or compressed 

air driven operations

can displace or increase 

combustion emissions.

Required statewide by 

WY BACT if no thermal 

combustion used.

Install vapor recovery on 

truck loading/unloading 

operations at tanks.

Reduces emissions of VOC 

and GHG emissions.

Pressure build up on 

older tanks can lead to 

uncontrolled rupture.

WY BACT analysis 

required if VOC ≥ 8 TPY or 

HAP≥ 5 TPY.

Control Strategies for Fugitive Dust and Vehicle Emissions

Unpaved surface treatments 

including watering, 

chemical suppressants,

and gravel.

20% - 80% control of 

fugitive dust (particulates) 

from vehicle traffic.

Potential impacts to water 

and vegetation from runoff 

of suppressants.
Worland Approved RMP 559

Appendix M Bighorn Basin Air Resource

Management Plan 

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Emission Reduction 

Measure

Potential Environmental 

Benefits

Potential Environmental 

Liabilities Feasibility

Use remote telemetry and 

automation of wellhead 

equipment.

Reduces vehicle traffic and 

associated emissions.

Speed limit control and 

enforcement on unpaved 

roads.

Reduction of fugitive dust 

emissions.

Reduce commuter vehicle 

trips through car pools, 

commuter vans or buses, 

innovative work schedules, 

or work camps.

Reduced combustion 

emissions, reduced fugitive 

dust emissions, reduced 

ozone formation, reduced 

impacts to visibility.

Miscellaneous Control Strategies

Use of ultra-low sulfur 

diesel in engines, 

compressors, construction 

equipment, etc.

Reduces emissions of 

particulates and sulfates.

Fuel not readily available in 

some areas.

Reduce unnecessary vehicle 

idling.

Reduced combustion 

emissions, reduced ozone 

formation, reduced impacts 

to visibility, reduced fuel 

consumption.

Reduced pace of (phased) 

development.

Peak emissions of all 

pollutants reduced.

Emissions generated at a 

lower rate but for a longer 

period. Local oversight 

program, duration of 

impacts is longer.

May not be economically 

viable or feasible if multiple 

mineral interests.

BACT Best Available Control Technology NOX Nitrogen Oxide 

CH4 Methane PM Particulate Matter

CO Carbon Monoxide SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction 

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality TPY Tons per year

EGHG Greenhouse Gas VOC Volatile Organic Compound

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant WY Wyoming 

NH3 Ammonia
This page intentionally 

left blank
Worland Approved RMP 561

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Appendix N. Seasonal Raptor Stipulations 

for All Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive 

Activities

Many raptors are sensitive to disturbance during the breeding and nesting season. Such 

disturbance may result in take. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service recommend spatial 

and seasonal buffer zones to avoid or minimize disturbance and the risk of take. Seasonal 

restrictions and spatial buffers are outlined in the table below. These seasonal restrictions may 

be modified on a site-specific or project-specific basis based on field observations and local 

conditions. Included in this appendix is information on raptor nesting periods and spatial buffers 

(Table N.1, “Seasonal Restrictions and Spatial Buffers” (p. 561)).

Table N.1. Seasonal Restrictions and Spatial Buffers 

Common Name Period of Seasonal Restriction Spatial Buffer Radius (TLS)1,2

American Kestrel April 1 – August 15 1⁄4-mile

Bald Eagle January 1 – August 15 1⁄2-mile

Boreal Owl February 1 – July 31 1⁄4-mile

Burrowing Owl April 1 – September 15 1⁄4-mile

Common Barn Owl February 1 – September 15 1⁄4-mile

Cooper's Hawk March 15 – August 31 1⁄4-mile

Eastern Screech-owl March 1 – August 15 1⁄4-mile

Ferruginous Hawk March 15 – July 31 1-mile

Golden Eagle January 15 – July 31 1⁄2-mile

Great Gray Owl March 15 – August 31 1⁄4-mile

Great Horned Owl December 1 – September 30 1⁄4-mile

Long-eared Owl February 1 – August 15 1⁄4-mile

Merlin April 1 – August 15 1⁄2-mile

Northern Goshawk April 1 – August 15 1⁄2-mile

Northern Harrier April 1 – August 15 1⁄4-mile

Northern Pygmy-Owl April 1 – August 1 1⁄4-mile

Northern Saw-whet Owl March 1 – August 31 1⁄4-mile

Osprey April 1 – August 31 1⁄4-mile

Peregrine Falcon March 1 – August 15 1⁄2-mile

Prairie Falcon March 1 – August 15 1⁄2-mile

Red-tailed Hawk February 1 – August 15 1⁄4-mile

Sharp-shinned Hawk March 15 – August 31 1⁄4-mile

Short-eared Owl March 15 – August 1 1⁄4-mile

Swainson's Hawk April 1 – August 31 1⁄4-mile

Western Screech-owl March 1 – August 15 1⁄4-mile

1Timing Limitation Stipulation (TLS)

2To protect the actual nest site, a year-round Controlled Surface Use (CSU) stipulation will be 

applied within a 1⁄4-mile radius of all raptor nests.

Appendix N Seasonal Raptor Stipulations for All 

Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities
This page intentionally 

left blank
Worland Approved RMP 563

Appendix O Livestock Grazing

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Appendix O. Livestock Grazing

This appendix consists of three tables that provide detailed information on grazing 

allotments in the planning area. Table O.1, “Current Livestock Grazing Allotment

Information” (p. 563) summarizes basic characteristics of each grazing allotment, including

current size, management, and use. Table O.2, “Standards and Guidelines Summary of Grazing

Allotments” (p. 573) summarizes the results of the most recent assessment of the Wyoming 

Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for each 

grazing allotment. Table O.3, “Current Livestock Grazing Allotments or Portions of Allotments

in Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Management Areas” (p. 577) lists grazing allotments 

that are wholly or partially within Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Management Areas, 

and identifies the current management category for each. The information portrayed within the 

appendix is subject to changes or updates as necessary. Changes or updates would be in response 

to allotment monitoring, Rangeland Health determinations and/or environmental analysis.

Table O.1. Current Livestock Grazing Allotment Information 

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name Management 

Category

Total Federal 

Acres

Active Use 

(AUMs)1

Type of 

Livestock

00001 Manderson Group I 9,039 779 Cattle

00002 Weber Lower I 32,156 2,762 Cattle

00003 Cold Springs I 4,510 696 Cattle/Horses

00004 Gapen Hyatt I 10,032 751 Cattle

00005 Southside Group I 29,412 3,151 Cattle/Horses

00006 Sand Creek Group I 7,874 713 Cattle

00007 Worland Cattle 

Group

I 13,241 1,110 Cattle

00008 Castle Gardens M 17,887 3,495 Cattle

00009 Kimball I 6,909 811 Cattle/Sheep

00010 Gordon M 3,209 863 Cattle

00011 Joe Henry I 7,000 1,301 Cattle/Sheep

00012 Big Trails Group M 24,356 5,309 Cattle

00014 Mileski Badlands I 8,988 825 Cattle

00015 Lower Nowater I 5,620 577 Cattle

00016 Badlands I 8,332 659 Sheep

00017 Billy Creek M 240 80 Sheep

00018 Upper Nowater I 5,650 577 Cattle

00019 Double H I 5,133 1,071 Cattle/Horses

00021 Little Cottonwood I 2,560 283 Cattle

00022 South Brokenback I 599 48 Cattle

00023 Leikham I 1,760 175 Cattle

00024 Beckley I 2,130 485 Cattle/Sheep

00025 Nowood 

Individual

I 800 71 Cattle

00026 Cottonwood Draw I 1,575 139 Cattle

00028 Upper Nowood C 60 15 Cattle

00029 West Lost Creek M 80 20 Cattle

00030 Big Cottonwood I 5,055 366 Cattle

00031 Brokenback I 10,669 1,468 Cattle/Horses

00032 Hidden Dome I 8,565 718 Cattle

00033 Alkali I 3,008 264 Cattle/Horses

00034 Rattlesnake Ridge I 11,885 1,243 Sheep

00035 Buffalo Canyon I 3,463 719 Cattle
564 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix O Livestock Grazing 

Contingency Plans September 2015

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name Management 

Category

Total Federal 

Acres

Active Use 

(AUMs)1

Type of 

Livestock

00036 Manderson C 8,805 814 Cattle/Sheep

00037 North Butte I 1,850 139 Cattle

00039 Warner Draw C 800 58 Cattle

00041 Fatty Allen I 1,380 166 Cattle

00042 East Fork I 8,888 900 Cattle

00043 North Tensleep M 1,101 100 Cattle/Horses

00044 South Tensleep M 400 49 Cattle/Horses

00045 South Pasture I 280 67 Cattle

00046 Sand Springs I 1,240 160 Cattle

00047 Hyattville 

Individual

I 2,400 210 Cattle

00048 Neiber I 17,055 1,860 Cattle

00049 Murphy Dome I 2,540 423 Cattle

00050 Mud Creek I 1,130 170 Cattle

00051 Farley I 400 80 Cattle

00052 Prevo Individual C 250 25 Sheep

00053 Ranch C 280 46 Cattle

00054 North Paintrock I 920 101 Cattle

00055 Lost Pasture C 100 25 Cattle

00056 Scott Mountain I 560 177 Cattle/Sheep

00057 Blue Ridge I 2,133 143 Cattle

00058 Mathews Ridge I 1,398 546 Cattle

00059 North House C 360 26 Horses

00060 Mesa M 80 22 Cattle

00061 Ainsworth 

Individual

M 44 10 Cattle

00062 Ainsworth I 900 130 Cattle/Horses

00063 Railroad Swamp M 100 11 Cattle

00064 Spanish Point I 707 185 Cattle

00065 Sheep Springs I 1,186 501 Cattle/Horses/ 

Sheep

00066 Meyers Spring I 1,542 416 Sheep

00067 Deeter M 380 119 Cattle/Sheep

00068 Box Elder I 1,000 423 Cattle

00069 Mahogany Butte I 2,330 433 Cattle/Sheep

00070 S V I 2,930 330 Cattle

00071 Chalk Butte M 3,165 644 Cattle

00072 Helms M 220 45 Cattle/Sheep

00073 Lower Sand Creek I 11,884 1,462 Cattle

00074 Antelope Draw I 15,786 1,776 Cattle/Sheep

00075 Battle Creek M 283 109 Cattle

00076 Lower Walker I 6,007 555 Cattle

00077 Middle Walker I 2,618 310 Cattle

00078 Upper Walker I 1,300 173 Cattle

00079 Pack Saddle 

Creek

I 1,520 244 Cattle

00080 North Murphy 

Dome

I 6,385 888 Cattle

00081 Lower Arnold I 1,600 258 Cattle

00082 Upper Arnold I 1,852 213 Cattle

00083 K I S I 1,991 449 Cattle

00084 Trapper Creek I 1,227 153 Cattle

00085 Tower C 50 2 Cattle
Worland Approved RMP 565

Appendix O Livestock Grazing

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name Management 

Category

Total Federal 

Acres

Active Use 

(AUMs)1

Type of 

Livestock

00086 Daugherty Dewitt M 740 148 Cattle

00087 Mountain 

Individual

M 170 34 Cattle

00088 Patras I 843 332 Cattle

00089 Big Bend I 8,847 1,429 Cattle

00090 Split Rock - V's I 2,680 811 Cattle/Horses

00091 Sand Creek I 25,993 2,183 Cattle

00092 Paintrock Canyon M 7,947 1,260 Cattle

00093 Long Point I 646 103 Cattle

00094 Red Hills M 8,321 691 Cattle

00095 Forks M 4,158 1,004 Cattle

00097 Deadline Draw M 3,130 611 Cattle

00099 Schoolhouse 

Gulch

I 3,107 170 Cattle/Sheep

00100 Sand Creek 

Individual

I 1,865 159 Cattle

00101 Ranch Individual M 840 153 Cattle

00102 Mountain Lost 

Creek

M 120 43 Cattle

00103 Little Lost Creek M 121 12 Cattle

00104 Cottonwood I 3,008 243 Sheep

00105 Nowater I 7,958 732 Sheep

00106 Bald Ridge M 317 51 Cattle

00107 Honey Combs I 28,975 2,320 Cattle

00108 Dixon Canyon I 740 60 Cattle

00109 Coyote Springs C 420 75 Cattle

00110 Bud Kimball I 7,275 900 Cattle

00111 Otter Creek I 600 134 Cattle

00112 Faure Nowater I 3,542 471 Cattle/Sheep

00113 North Nowood I 1,000 155 Cattle

00114 South Nowood I 2,574 257 Cattle

00116 Brush Cabin M 240 44 Cattle

00117 Pierson Mountain M 40 5 Cattle

00118 Scorpion I 14,182 1,497 Cattle

00119 Bluebank M 7,600 1,267 Cattle

00120 Buffalo Creek I 7,026 1,349 Cattle/Horses

00122 Harvard 

Individual

M 320 37 Cattle/Sheep

00123 Buffalo Sand 

Point

I 29,046 6,972 Cattle/Horses

00124 West Side 

Summer

I 2,945 710 Cattle/Horses

00125 East Side Summer I 1,880 460 Cattle

00127 Otter Creek 

Pastures

I 2,820 575 Cattle

00129 Mazet M 80 26 Cattle

00130 Lower V's I 1,950 429 Cattle/Sheep

00131 High Camp I 900 216 Cattle

00132 Big Cottonwood 

Creek

I 13,634 1,270 Cattle/Sheep

00133 Potter Butte I 4,480 678 Cattle

00134 Bonanza C 1,550 141 Cattle
566 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix O Livestock Grazing 

Contingency Plans September 2015

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name Management 

Category

Total Federal 

Acres

Active Use 

(AUMs)1

Type of 

Livestock

00135 Axtell Ditch 

Creek

M 320 58 Cattle

00136 Black Hills C 520 32 Cattle

00137 Paintrock South I 800 57 Cattle/Horses

00138 Hurtig I 1,720 258 Cattle

00141 Greet Individual M 240 52 Cattle

00142 Rannells M 1,752 700 Cattle

00143 Medicine Lodge I 9,332 1 Cattle

00144 Lower Nowood C 11,700 984 Cattle/Sheep

00145 Cedar Ridge M 9,811 1,321 Cattle/Horses/ 

Sheep

00146 East Allotment I 610 130 Cattle

00147 West Allotment I 3,042 515 Cattle

00148 Renner Individual I 11,782 383 Cattle

00149 Lost Creek M 33 10 Cattle

00150 Juniper Hills M 630 56 Cattle/Horses

00151 Homestead C 400 20 Cattle

00153 Denver Jake Draw C 10,856 1,358 Cattle/Sheep

00155 Mary's Creek I 975 58 Cattle

00156 Rome Hill I 5,300 558 Cattle

00157 South Butte M 2,180 502 Cattle

00158 Seaman I 6,680 1,922 Cattle

00159 Tie Down C 2,791 93 Cattle

00160 Spring Creek 

Common

I 1,557 152 Cattle/Sheep

00161 North Blue Ridge C 2,703 211 Cattle

00162 Slick Water I 12,368 1,388 Cattle

00163 Demer Nowater I 7,000 234 Cattle

00164 CottonwoodNorth Butte

I 10,299 350 Cattle

00166 Jacobs Creek I 745 51 Cattle

00167 Switchback I 1,405 146 Cattle

00168 Lower Spring 

Creek

I 1,240 73 Cattle

00169 Bader Gulch M 200 20 Sheep

00170 Oilfield C 6,233 763 Cattle

00171 East Nowood C 1,560 179 Cattle

00172 West Nowood I 785 39 Cattle

00173 Tensleep I 1,945 275 Cattle

00174 Lower 

Brokenback

I 1,062 107 Cattle

00175 Upper 

Brokenback

I 4,771 486 Cattle

00177 Red Springs Rock 

Butte

I 850 166 Cattle

00178 Dry Tensleep I 1,196 326 Cattle

00179 Tharp Individual C 145 10 Cattle

00181 Torchlight C 19,337 1,571 Sheep

00182 Buttes I 2,800 700 Cattle/Sheep

00183 Onion Gulch I 920 164 Cattle/Sheep

00184 Upper Sand Creek C 5819 783 Cattle

00185 Healy C 15,572 1,435 Cattle

00186 Rim I 2,640 278 Sheep
Worland Approved RMP 567

Appendix O Livestock Grazing

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name Management 

Category

Total Federal 

Acres

Active Use 

(AUMs)1

Type of 

Livestock

00188 Small Pasture I 767 114 Cattle/Horses

00189 Jolly Pasture I 884 210 Cattle/Horses

00190 Turner Pasture I 440 67 Cattle

00191 Lower Black 

Mountain Draw

I 2,442 407 Cattle

00192 Upper Black 

Mountain Draw

I 402 80 Cattle

00193 Little Mud Creek I 310 33 Cattle

00194 Upper Black 

Mountain

I 621 136 Cattle

00195 Lower Black 

Mountain

I 360 72 Cattle

00196 Lake Creek I 360 58 Cattle

00197 Duncan M 415 37 Cattle

00199 Big Cedar I 1,955 498 Cattle/Horses

00200 South Individual M 1,470 161 Cattle/Horses

00201 East Basin Draw C 160 15 Cattle

00202 Airport I 7,412 641 Cattle

00203 Tobes Pastures I 1,020 231 Cattle

00204 North Of Ditch I 720 30 Cattle

00205 West Black 

Mountain

I 885 141 Cattle

00206 Bear Creek 

Common

I 1,503 263 Cattle

00210 Willow Creek I 4,096 931 Cattle

00211 Wyman Draw I 217 18 Cattle

00212 Signal Butte I 111 12 Horses

00213 East Hyattville C 80 12 Horses

00214 South Bank C 20 5 Cattle

00215 Deeded M 2,334 408 Cattle

00216 Mud Gulch M 1,870 192 Cattle/Sheep

00217 East Alkali I 4,192 314 Cattle/Horses/ 

Sheep

00218 West Alkali I 12,696 814 Sheep

00219 Robson Mountain M 240 50 Cattle

00220 East Flats C 3,924 255 Cattle/Sheep

00221 Parker I 1,846 126 Cattle

00222 Anthony Timber I 870 109 Cattle

00223 Wood's Split Rock M 300 64 Cattle

00294 O’Brien Camp C 363 105 Cattle

00501 Blue Springs I 12,979 2,789 Cattle/Horses

00502 South Lucerne 

Group

M 5,077 494 Cattle/Horses/ 

Sheep

00504 Hamilton Dome I 11,125 799 Cattle/Horses

00506 Common Harvey I 965 98 Cattle

00507 South Gooseberry 

Group

I 58,468 4,526 Cattle/Sheep

00508 North Gooseberry I 113,805 8,519 Cattle/Sheep

00509 New Burlington 

Group

I 94,834 6,207 Cattle/Sheep

00510 Fernandez 

Blu-Jay

I 8,900 710 Cattle

00511 East Tanner M 252 33 Cattle
568 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix O Livestock Grazing 

Contingency Plans September 2015

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name Management 

Category

Total Federal 

Acres

Active Use 

(AUMs)1

Type of 

Livestock

00512 Coulter Group I 11,516 666 Cattle/Horses

00513 Dockery 

Hammond

C 741 80 Cattle

00515 Upper Gooseberry M 3,301 864 Cattle

00516 Blue Creek I 1,888 84 Cattle

00517 Cedar Mountain C 8,320 690 Cattle

00518 Home Place M 1,250 175 Cattle

00519 Middle Creek I 545 126 Cattle

00520 Red Creek C 124 21 Cattle

00521 Lower 

Cottonwood

I 6,566 411 Cattle

00522 Grass Creek I 8,994 949 Cattle

00523 Highway Junction I 5,590 663 Cattle

00524 Cottonwood 

Creek

I 1,202 233 Cattle/Horses

00525 Rock Creek I 4,311 2

00526 Rimrock Basin I 3,331 665 Cattle

00527 Blackstone C 797 171 Cattle

00528 Six Mile I 1,766 134 Sheep

00529 Prospect Common I 7,832 1,207 Cattle

00530 Grass Creek Basin C 1,819 300 Cattle/Horses

00531 Spring Gulch I 1,982 295 Cattle

00532 Whisky Gulch I 356 79 Cattle/Horses

00533 Home Ranch I 938 132 Cattle/Horses

00534 East Cottonwood C 3,413 1

00535 West Cottonwood C 7,113 1

00536 Heifer M 882 225 Cattle

00537 Padlock I 2,257 510 Cattle

00538 East Waugh Dome C 2,600 208 Cattle

00539 Buchanan Basin I 339 125 Cattle

00540 Bridges C 757 190 Cattle

00541 Three Peaks I 985 60 Cattle

00543 Cannady 

Individual

I 928 58 Cattle

00545 Grass Point I 4,138 547 Cattle/Horses

00546 Highway I 1,149 107 Cattle

00547 Red Farm M 1,317 172 Cattle

00548 D & LM

Individual

I 1,903 151 Sheep

00549 Greybull Bend C 380 37 Cattle

00551 Coulee-Mill Iron M 2,461 _2

00552 Milk Creek M 382 108 Cattle

00553 Richmond I 3,934 599 Cattle/Horses

00554 Waugh Dome C 2,255 138 Cattle

00556 21 Creek I 1,808 322 Cattle

00557 Ramul Individual M 135 18 Cattle

00558 Buck Creek I 488 95 Cattle

00559 East Five Mile C 1,888 400 Cattle

00560 Sfnf I 1,086 82 Cattle

00561 Freudenthal 

Individual

C 1,935 268 Cattle

00562 Gardner Badlands I 11,641 1,934 Cattle

00563 Winter Camp I 2,310 490 Cattle
Worland Approved RMP 569

Appendix O Livestock Grazing

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name Management 

Category

Total Federal 

Acres

Active Use 

(AUMs)1

Type of 

Livestock

00564 Little Buffalo 

Basin

M 2,277 562 Cattle

00565 Red Hole I 2,106 307 Cattle

00566 Meeteetse Draw I 2,026 218 Cattle

00567 Lucerne C 2,460 188 Cattle/Horses

00568 Basin I 8,527 _2

00569 Curtis M 3,388 2

00570 Red Springs Draw I 6,431 900 Cattle

00571 Zimmerman 

Buttes

I 4,059 503 Cattle

00572 Eagle Draw M 1,882 440 Cattle

00573 Wagonhound 

Bench

I 3,478 _2

00574 Coal Draw M 6,551 _2

00575 Slab Creek I 1,016 2

00577 South Basin I 42,331 3,123 Sheep

00578 North Basin 

Group

I 5,392 350 Cattle/Sheep

00579 Hillberry Rim I 9,187 1,452 Cattle/Sheep

00580 Coal Mine I 469 97 Cattle

00581 Cherry Creek I 670 164 Cattle

00582 Mill Iron-East M 404 _2

00583 Mud Creek 

Pasture

C 182 21 Cattle

00584 Jones Flat M 121 _2

00585 North Hart I 561 _2

00586 South Hart C 85 2

00587 Typer Pasture C 254 2

00588 Sandstone C 536 _2

00589 Kirby Creek I 10,032 1,044 Cattle/Horses/ 

Sheep

00590 Little Sand Draw I 7,372 304 Cattle

00591 Zimmerman 

Springs

I 4,779 476 Sheep

00592 Wild Horse Butte I 1,325 443 Cattle/Sheep

00593 Hamilton Rim M 570 59 Horses

00594 Buffalo Basin M 1,369 389 Cattle

00595 Iron Creek M 1,312 410 Cattle

00596 Wagonhound I 8,198 _2

00598 Powder River I 3,374 921 Cattle/Sheep

00599 Gooseberry M 3,108 555 Cattle

00600 Wall Rock M 1,084 533 Cattle

00601 Mormon Creek M 307 107 Cattle

00602 Rock Springs 

Draw

I 5,191 869 Cattle/Horses

00603 Pistol Draw C 2,280 431 Cattle

00604 Lu I 101,548 16,031 Cattle/Horses/ 

Sheep

00607 Lake I 3,621 734 Cattle

00608 Vass I 693 100 Cattle

00609 Owl Creek I 1,867 144 Cattle/Horses

00610 South Owl Creek I 888 82 Cattle

00612 South Tatman I 2,241 176 Sheep
570 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix O Livestock Grazing 

Contingency Plans September 2015

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name Management 

Category

Total Federal 

Acres

Active Use 

(AUMs)1

Type of 

Livestock

00613 Putney Flat M 817 180 Cattle

00614 Rattlesnake I 789 139 Cattle

00615 Lime Ridge I 959 230 Cattle

00616 Home M 3,851 378 Cattle

00617 Gloyd Individual M 119 10 Cattle

00618 North Blackstone C 699 118 Horses

00620 Prospect I 4,956 1,205 Cattle/Horses

00621 North Grass Creek I 2,348 293 Cattle

00622 South Highway I 8,977 758 Cattle

00623 North Highway C 6,655 449 Cattle

00624 Black Willow 

Draw

I 3,500 596 Cattle

00625 Freeman Draw C 1,100 134 Cattle

00626 Timber Creek I 8,098 327 Cattle

00627 Rooster Creek I 3,017 640 Cattle/Horses

00631 Ditch Creek I 2,120 385 Cattle

00633 Upper Pastures I 4,463 1,057 Cattle

00634 Lower Pastures I 9,998 980 Cattle/Horses

00635 Plummer I 1,320 268 Cattle

00636 Haynes C 455 131 Cattle

00637 Adam Weiss Peak I 3,681 625 Cattle

00638 King Dome M 4,741 519 Cattle

00639 Tatman Mt 

Common

I 29,104 2,423 Cattle

00641 Swing Individual C 472 35 Cattle

00642 Bear Trap C 400 58 Cattle/Sheep

00643 Buchanan M 3,358 545 Cattle

00644 Tanner M 4,266 567 Cattle

00645 South Coal Draw M 4,738 545 Cattle

00646 Back Of Rim M 5,223 635 Cattle

00647 Steer M 2,089 340 Cattle

00648 Shumway 

Individual

I 357 50 Cattle

00649 Maret M 480 100 Cattle

00650 South Gebo 

Common

M 1,857 181 Cattle

00651 West Five Mile M 39,870 1,000 Cattle

00652 Badger Gulch I 18,864 2,136 Sheep

00653 Red Lane C 636 63 Cattle

00654 Ayers Individual I 609 125 Cattle

00655 Copper Mountain I 560 121 Cattle

00656 Sand Draw I 5,953 839 Cattle

00657 West Lucerne M 969 90 Cattle

00658 Red Springs M 1,697 385 Cattle

00659 Black Willow M 1,902 444 Cattle

00660 West C 720 106 Cattle

00661 Three Peaks 

Anchor

I 6,714 _2

00662 Enright I 9,608 1,423 Cattle

00663 Cow Pasture C 1,949 164 Cattle

00664 Alamo Creek I 328 25 Cattle

00665 Nelson M 14,266 861 Cattle

00667 Turk C 300 36 Cattle
Worland Approved RMP 571

Appendix O Livestock Grazing

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name Management 

Category

Total Federal 

Acres

Active Use 

(AUMs)1

Type of 

Livestock

00669 Allen Basin I 12,900 835 Sheep

00670 Upper 15 Mile C 441 201 Cattle

00671 Ten Mile I 24,199 1,651 Sheep

00672 Mountain I 1,002 187 Cattle

00673 Mountain West C 179 26 Cattle

00674 North Tatman C 9,463 752 Cattle

00675 Cheever Flat C 160 7 Cattle

00676 Pitchfork I 12,733 1,187 Sheep

00678 South Grass Creek I 9,068 1,489 Cattle/Horses

00679 North Rim M 921 111 Cattle/Horses

00680 Lake Creek 

Pasture

C 758 _2

00681 Spring Creek I 1,611 _2

00682 Hunt Oil 15 Mile I 16,692 1,420 Sheep

00683 South Sleeper I 4,666 1,225 Cattle/Sheep

00685 Bramah I 1,220 175 Cattle

00686 Middle Fork 

Powder River

C 99 13 Cattle

00720 Putney Place C 454 109 Horses

00721 Urwin Homestead C 167 25 Horses

00722 Wales Homestead C 108 24 Horses

01502 East Jack Creek I 440 47 Cattle

01503 Long Point 

Pasture

I 860 137 Cattle

01504 Wild Horse Flats C 8,200 509 Sheep

01507 Bush Butte I 3,710 275 Cattle

01508 Chimney Rock M 656 32 Horses

01510 Fox Mountain I 9,946 582 Cattle/Sheep

01511 Lake Ridge I 546 157 Cattle/Horses

01513 Black Mountain I 5,393 295 Cattle

01514 White Creek I 163 72 Cattle

01519 South Shell I 3,760 289 Cattle

01521 Horse Mountain M 595 21 Horses

01523 Golf Course C 480 20 Horses

01524 South Alkali C 200 22 Horses

01525 Potato I 27,940 2,544 Cattle

01526 Sabin I 1,023 187 Cattle

01535 South Shell Group I 11,862 1,160 Cattle/Horses

01536 Upper White 

Creek

I 5,496 634 Cattle

01537 Potato Ridge C 8,600 357 Sheep

01539 Lower White 

Creek

M 890 77 Cattle

02001 Willow Springs M 375 94 Cattle

02003 Rose Mountain M 80 20 Cattle

02005 Tallon V I 1,240 260 Cattle

02007 Otter Creek 

Mountain

I 1,730 329 Cattle

02008 Box Canyon I 280 72 Cattle

02010 Dry Farm M 496 124 Cattle

02012 Natrona M 4,028 841 Cattle

02013 Harriet M 800 163 Cattle/Sheep

02014 Cherry Creek Hill M 159 26 Cattle
572 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix O Livestock Grazing 

Contingency Plans September 2015

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name Management 

Category

Total Federal 

Acres

Active Use 

(AUMs)1

Type of 

Livestock

02015 Beaton Place I 160 44 Cattle/Sheep

02016 S.F. Little Canyon 

Creek

M 240 60 Sheep

02017 Hall Butte M 240 24 Cattle

02018 Warm Springs I 1,387 215 Cattle

02019 Hazen Draw I 400 80 Cattle

02020 Tanner-Mountain I 600 154 Cattle

02342 Otter Creek Vee 

Rd

C 80 20 Cattle

02501 Arapahoe Ranch C 465 161 Cattle

02503 Grider Basin I 2,144 385 Cattle

02505 Lower Red 

Canyon

I 2,261 450 Cattle

02506 Dye I 2,758 460 Cattle

02507 Bridger Creek I 1,680 244 Cattle

02509 Peak I 3,742 716 Cattle

02510 Gould Individual I 2,310 367 Cattle

02512 Billys Flats M 80 31 Cattle

02514 V-H Draw I 3,227 503 Cattle

02515 East Fork Jones 

Creek

M 240 48 Cattle

02516 Wood's Basin I 400 67 Cattle

02522 Kruger Sec 15 M 80 16 Cattle

02525 Jones Creek 

Mountain

I 440 75 Cattle

02529 Jones Creek I 320 51 Cattle

02530 Neilson I 520 95 Cattle

02531 Jenks Creek I 40 8 Cattle

02533 Sliver I 566 43 Cattle

02536 Blue Hill I 2,227 404 Cattle/Horses

02538 Jones Creek Basin I 2,342 710 Cattle

02539 Red Canyon I 6,480 795 Cattle

02541 M.F. Warm 

Springs

I 400 58 Horses

02542 Stump I 437 96 Cattle/Horses

02543 Swallow I 698 156 Cattle

02546 Major Basin I 4,324 876 Cattle

02547 V Pasture I 2,304 396 Cattle/Horses

02549 Hawks Butte I 720 95 Cattle

02550 Melton Mountain I 680 104 Cattle

02552 Twin Buttes I 2,516 454 Cattle

02554 Reed Creek I 2,000 349 Cattle

02555 Lawler Sec 15 C 1,194 115 Cattle

02559 Slope Pasture I 2,220 563 Cattle

02560 Lysite Creek I 160 32 Cattle

02562 Meeteetse-East M 984 131 Cattle/Sheep

02563 Larsen Sec 15 M 515 78 Cattle

02565 Little Canyon 

Creek #2

C 680 160 Cattle/Horses/ 

Sheep

02566 Little Canyon 

Creek Med

C 40 11 Cattle/Sheep
Worland Approved RMP 573

Appendix O Livestock Grazing

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Allotment 

Number Allotment Name Management 

Category

Total Federal 

Acres

Active Use 

(AUMs)1

Type of 

Livestock

02567 Sullivan Creek 

Valley

C 700 165 Cattle/Sheep

1For the purposes of this table, active use is expressed in AUMs.

2No AUMs are currently assigned for this grazing allotment/permit/lease.

Note: Data in table derived from Bureau of Land Management Worland Field Office internal databases accessed 

from 2010 to 2013.

AMP Allotment Management Plan 

AUM Animal Unit Month

C Custodial 

I Improve 

M Maintain

USFS U.S. Forest Service

Table O.2. Standards and Guidelines Summary of Grazing Allotments 

Allotment Name Allotment 

Number

Year 

Completed Progress1 Standard2,3

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6

Adam Weiss Peak 00637 2012 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Alamo Creek 00664 1999 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Alkali 00033 1999 Y Y Y N Y U Y

Allen Basin 00669 2002 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Antelope Draw 00074 1998 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Anthony Timber 00222 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

Badger Gulch 00652 2002 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Basin 00568 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

Beckley 00024 2011 Y N/A Y Y U U

Big Cottonwood 

Creek

00132 1999 U Y N/A N Y U Y

Big Trails Group 00012 1998 U Y Y Y Y N Y

Black Mountain 01513 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

Black Willow 00659 1999 U Y N/A Y Y U Y

Black Willow 

Draw

00624 2009 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Blue Creek 00516 2009 U Y Y Y Y U U

Blue Hill 02536 2009 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Blue Springs 00501 2009 Y Y Y Y U Y

Boundary Well 01068 2006 U N Y N Y U Y

Box Canyon 02008 2009 Y Y Y Y U U

Box Elder 00068 2001 Y Y Y Y U Y

Bramah 00685 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

Bridger Creek 02507 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

Bridges 00540 2009 Y Y Y Y U U

Buchanan Basin 00539 1999 Y N N N Y U Y

Buck Creek 00558 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

Buttes 00182 2000 U Y U Y Y U Y

Cedar Ridge 00145 2010 Y N/A Y Y U U

Cottonwood 

Creek

00524 2010 Y N Y Y U Y

Cottonwood 

Draw

00026 2001 Y Y Y Y U Y

Coulee-Mill Iron 00551 1999 U Y N/A N N U Y

Curtis 00569 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y
574 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix O Livestock Grazing 

Contingency Plans September 2015

Allotment Name Allotment 

Number

Year 

Completed Progress1 Standard2,3

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6

Deadline Draw 00097 1998 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Denver Jake 00153 2010 Y Y Y Y U U

Demer Nowater 00163 2011 Y N N/A N Y U U

Ditch Creek 00631 2009 Y Y Y Y U Y

Dockery 

Hammond

00513 2002 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Double H 00019 2001 Y Y Y Y U Y

Dye 02506 2001 Y N/A Y Y U Y

East Alkali 00217 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

East Allotment 00146 2009 Y Y Y Y U U

East Jack Creek 01502 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

Farley 00051 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

Faure Nowater 00112 1999 U Y Y N Y U Y

Fernandez 

Blu-Jay

00510 1999 U N N/A N Y U Y

Fox Mountain 01510 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

Freeman Draw 00625 2010 Y N/A Y Y U U

Gould Individual 02510 1998 Y Y Y Y U Y

Grass Creek 00522 2001 U Y Y N Y U Y

Grass Creek 

Basin

00530 2000 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Grass Point 00545 2010 Y Y Y Y Y U

Hall Butte 02017 2000 Y Y N Y Y U Y

Hamilton Dome 00504 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

Healy 00185 2000 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Hidden Dome 00032 1999 U Y Y N Y U Y

High Camp 00131 2000 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Hillberry Rim 00579 2010 Y Y Y Y U U

Home 00616 1998 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Horse Mountain 01521 2001 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Hunt Oil 15 Mile 00682 2002 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Joe Henry 00011 2011 Y N/A Y Y U U

Jolly Pasture 00189 2011 Y Y N Y Y U U

Jones Creek 

Basin

02538 2001 Y Y Y Y U Y

Jones Creek 

Mountain

02525 2001 Y N/A Y Y U Y

K I S 00083 1998 Y Y Y Y U Y

Kimball 00009 2011 U Y Y Y Y U U

Kirby Creek 00589 2011 Y N Y Y N U

Lake 00607 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

Lake Ridge 01511 2010 Y Y Y Y U U

Lime Ridge 00615 1998 Y Y Y Y U U

Little Buffalo 

Basin

00564 1998 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Little Sand Draw 00590 2001 U Y Y N Y U Y

Long Point 

Pasture

01503 2000 Y Y Y Y U Y

Lost Creek 00149 2001 U Y N/A Y Y U Y

Lower Arnold 00081 1998 U Y Y Y N U Y

Lower 

Brokenback

00174 2011 N N/A Y Y U U
Worland Approved RMP 575

Appendix O Livestock Grazing

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Allotment Name Allotment 

Number

Year 

Completed Progress1 Standard2,3

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6

Lower 

Cottonwood

00521 2001 U Y Y N Y U Y

Lower Nowood 00144 2010 Y N/A Y Y U U

Lower Nowater 00015 2000 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Lower Red 

Canyon

02505 2001 Y Y Y Y U Y

Lower Sand 

Creek

00073 1998 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Lower V's 00130 1999 U Y N/A N Y U Y

LU 00604 1998 Y N Y N Y U Y

M.F. Warm 

Springs

02541 2009 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Mahogany Butte 00069 1998 Y Y Y Y Y Y

Major Basin 02546 2011 Y Y Y Y U U

Manderson 00036 1999 U Y N/A Y Y U Y

Maret 00649 2001 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Melton Mountain 02550 2001 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Meyers Spring 00066 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

Middle Creek 00519 2000 U Y Y Y Y U Y

Milk Creek 00552 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

Mill Iron-East 00582 1999 U Y N/A N N U Y

Mountain 00672 2000 U Y Y Y Y U Y

Mud Creek 00050 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

Mud Creek 

Pasture

00583 2001 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Mud Gulch 00216 1999 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Murphy Dome 00049 1999 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Neiber 00048 2000 Y N/A Y Y U Y

North Grass 

Creek

00621 1999 Y N/A Y Y U Y

North Hart 00585 1999 Y N/A Y Y U Y

North Highway 00623 1998 Y N/A Y Y U Y

North Murphy 

Dome

00080 1998 Y Y Y Y U Y

Nowood 

Individual

00025 2001 Y N/A Y Y U Y

O’Brien Camp 00294 2010 Y Y N Y Y U U

Oil Field 00170 2009 Y N Y Y U U

Onion Gulch 00183 2000 Y Y Y Y U Y

Otter Creek 

Pastures

00127 1999 U Y N N Y U Y

Owl Creek 00609 1999 U Y U U Y U Y

Parker 00221 2010 Y Y N/A Y Y U U

Patras 00088 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

Peak 02509 2009 Y Y Y Y U Y

Pistol Draw 00603 2001 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Pitchfork 00676 2002 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Potato 01525 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

Potato Ridge 01537 1999 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Potter Butte 00133 1999 Y N/A N Y U Y

Prospect 

Common

00529 1998 Y Y Y Y U Y

Putney Flat 00613 2000 Y Y Y Y U Y
576 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix O Livestock Grazing 

Contingency Plans September 2015

Allotment Name Allotment 

Number

Year 

Completed Progress1 Standard2,3

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6

Putney Place 00720 1999 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Ramul Individual 00557 1999 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Rattlesnake 00614 1998 Y Y Y Y U Y

Red Creek 00520 2000 Y Y Y Y Y Y

Red Farm 00547 2000 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Red Hole 00565 2009 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Red Lane 00653 2002 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Red Springs 00658 2009 Y Y Y Y U Y

Red Springs 

Draw

00570 2010 Y N Y Y N U

Red Springs/ 

Rock Butte

00177 2011 Y Y Y Y U U

Reed Creek 02554 2009 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Richmond 00553 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

Rim 00186 2011 U Y Y Y Y U U

Robson 

Mountain

00219 2001 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Rock Springs 

Draw

00602 2009 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Rooster Creek 00627 1999 Y N N N Y U Y

Rose Mountain 02003 1998 Y N/A Y Y U Y

S V 00070 1998 Y Y Y Y Y Y

Sand Draw 00656 2000 U Y N/A N Y U Y

Schoolhouse 

Gulch

00099 2001 Y N N/A N N U Y

Scorpion 00118 1999 U Y Y N Y U Y

Sheep Springs 00065 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

Slab Creek 00575 1999 U Y N N Y U Y

Slick Water 00162 1999 U Y N/A N Y U Y

Small Pasture 00188 2011 Y Y N/A Y Y U U

Snyder 00640 2013 N4 N/A N4 N4 Y U

South Butte 00157 1999 Y N/A Y Y U Y

South 

Gooseberry

00507 2010 Y N Y Y Y U

South Highway 00622 1998 U Y N/A Y Y U Y

South Individual 00200 2001 Y N/A Y Y U Y

South Shell 01519 2000 Y Y Y Y U Y

South Sleeper 00683 2011 Y Y Y Y U U

South Tatman 00612 1999 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Spanish Point 00064 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

Spring Gulch 00531 2012 Y Y Y Y U U

Stump 02542 2009 U Y N/A Y Y U Y

Swallow 02543 2012 Y N/A Y Y U U

Tatman Mt 

Common

00639 2013 N4 N/A N4 N4 U U

Ten Mile 00671 1998 Y Y Y Y U U

Ten Sleep 00173 2010 Y N/A Y Y U U

Tharp Individual 00179 2000 Y N Y N N U Y

Timber Creek 00626 1999 Y N N N Y U Y

Tobes Pasture 00203 1998 Y Y Y Y U Y

Torchlight 00181 2000 Y Y Y Y U Y

Tower 00085 2001 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Turner Pasture 00190 1998 Y Y Y N N U Y
Worland Approved RMP 577

Appendix O Livestock Grazing

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Allotment Name Allotment 

Number

Year 

Completed Progress1 Standard2,3

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6

Twin Buttes 02552 2001 Y Y Y Y U Y

Upper Arnold 00082 1998 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Upper 

Brokenback

00175 2010 Y Y Y Y U U

Upper 

Gooseberry

00515 1999 U Y U Y Y U Y

Upper Nowater 00018 2000 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Upper Sand 

Creek

00184 2000 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Upper White 

Creek

01536 2000 Y Y Y Y U Y

Urwin 

Homestead

00721 1999 Y N/A Y Y U Y

V Pasture 02547 2008 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Vass 00608 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

Wagonhound 

Bench

00573 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

Wales Homestead 00722 1999 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Waugh Dome 00554 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

West 00660 2009 Y N/A Y Y U Y

West Alkali 00218 1999 Y N/A Y Y U Y

West Allotment 00147 2010 Y N/A Y Y U U

West Black 

Mountain

00205 2000 Y N/A Y N N/A Y

Wild Horse Butte 00592 2011 U Y N Y Y U U

Willow Creek 00210 1999 U Y U U Y U Y

Willow Springs 02001 2001 Y N/A Y Y U Y

Winter Camp 00563 2009 Y Y Y Y U Y

Worland Cattle 

Group

00007 1999 Y Y Y Y U Y

Zimmerman 

Buttes

00571 2009 Y N/A N4 Y U U

Zimmerman 

Springs

00591 2012 Y Y N4 Y U U

1Codes in Progress and Standard columns are as follows: Y = Yes, meets standard, N = 

No, does not meet standard, U = Unknown.

2Codes in Progress and Standard columns are as follows: Y = Yes, meets standard, N = 

No, does not meet standard, U = Unknown.

3Standards 5 and 6 are dependent upon determinations made by the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ). Standard 5 is Unknown if allotment specific data is not available. Wyoming 

DEQ is researching whether any “impaired” waters have data showing impairment on BLM lands.

4Some acres within the allotment met standards, while others did not.

Note: Data in table derived from Bureau of Land Management Worland Field Office internal databases accessed 

from 2010 to 2013.

Table O.3. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments or Portions of Allotments in Greater 

Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Management Areas 

Allotment Number Allotment Name Management Category

01513 BLACK MOUNTAIN I

01510 FOX MOUNTAIN I

01535 SOUTH SHELL GROUP I

01507 BUSH BUTTE I
578 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix O Livestock Grazing 

Contingency Plans September 2015

Allotment Number Allotment Name Management Category

01525 POTATO I

01519 SOUTH SHELL I

00065 SHEEP SPRINGS M

01526 SABIN I

00189 JOLLY PASTURE I

00002 WEBER LOWER I

00143 MEDICINE LODGE I

00674 NORTH TATMAN C

00066 MEYERS SPRING I

00188 SMALL PASTURE I

00639 TATMAN MT COMMON I

00094 RED HILLS I

00218 WEST ALKALI I

00217 EAST ALKALI I

00640 SNYDER I

00003 COLD SPRINGS I

00095 FORKS I

02527 UNALLOTTED 1

00221 PARKER I

00092 PAINTROCK CANYON I

00669 ALLEN BASIN I

00527 BLACKSTONE C

00618 NORTH BLACKSTONE C

00059 NORTH HOUSE C

00652 BADGER GULCH I

00136 BLACK HILLS C

00005 SOUTHSIDE GROUP I

00213 EAST HYATTVILLE C

00047 HYATTVILLE INDIVIDUAL I

00004 GAPEN HYATT I

00526 RIMROCK BASIN I

00004 GAPEN HYATT I

00200 SOUTH INDIVIDUAL 1 

00148 RENNER INDIVIDUAL I

02562 MEETEETSE-EAST M

00682 HUNT OIL 15 MILE I

00676 PITCHFORK I

00025 NOWOOD INDIVIDUAL I

00663 COW PASTURE C

02701 STATE 1

00508 NO. GOOSEBERRY I

00670 UPPER 15 MILE C

00662 ENRIGHT I

00604 LU I

00579 HILLBERRY RIM I

00031 BROKENBACK I

00171 EAST NOWOOD C

00623 NORTH HIGHWAY C

00579 HILLBERRY RIM I

00545 GRASS POINT I

00021 LITTLE COTTONWOOD I

00132 BIG COTTONWOOD CREEK I

SDW W-T STOCK DRIVE 1 

00008 CASTLE GARDENS I
Worland Approved RMP 579

Appendix O Livestock Grazing

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Allotment Number Allotment Name Management Category

00523 HIGHWAY JUNCTION I

00009 KIMBALL I

00215 DEEDED I

00164 COTTONWOOD-N.BUTTE I

00507 SO. GOOSEBERRY GROUP I

00185 HEALY C

00616 HOME M

00622 SOUTH HIGHWAY I

00007 WORLAND CATTLE GROUP I

00107 HONEY COMBS I

00168 LOWER SPRING CREEK I

00122 HARVARD INDIVIDUAL M

00153 DENVER JAKE DRAW C

00042 EAST FORK I

00110 BUD KIMBALL I

00160 SPRING CREEK COMMON I

00637 ADAM WEISS PEAK I

00522 GRASS CREEK I

00037 NORTH BUTTE I

00580 COAL MINE I

00678 SOUTH GRASS CREEK I

00109 COYOTE SPRINGS C

00048 NEIBER I

02003 ROSE MOUNTAIN M

00216 MUD GULCH M

00129 MAZET M

00127 OTTER CREEK PASTURES I

00028 UPPER NOWOOD C

00074 ANTELOPE DRAW I

00531 SPRING GULCH I

00163 DEMER NOWATER I

00145 CEDAR RIDGE M

00521 LOWER COTTONWOOD I

00159 TIE DOWN C

00011 JOE HENRY I

00133 POTTER BUTTE I

02008 BOX CANYON I

00024 BECKLEY I

00127 OTTER CREEK PASTURES I

00535 WEST COTTONWOOD C

00111 OTTER CREEK I

00529 PROSPECT COMMON I

00620 PROSPECT I

00665 NELSON M

00130 LOWER V'S I

00014 MILESKI BADLANDS I

00112 FAURE NOWATER I

00019 DOUBLE H I

02007 OTTER CREEK MOUNTAIN I

00105 NOWATER I

00633 UPPER PASTURES I

00041 FATTY ALLEN I

00590 LITTLE SAND DRAW I

00060 MESA M
580 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix O Livestock Grazing 

Contingency Plans September 2015

Allotment Number Allotment Name Management Category

00641 SWING INDIVIDUAL C

00199 BIG CEDAR I

00573 WAGONHOUND BENCH I

00010 GORDON M

00015 LOWER NOWATER I

00120 BUFFALO CREEK I

00061 AINSWORTH INDIVIDUAL M

00603 PISTOL DRAW C

00012 BIG TRAILS GROUP I

00721 URWIN HOMESTEAD C

00062 AINSWORTH I

00141 GREET INDIVIDUAL M

00076 LOWER WALKER I

00557 RAMUL INDIVIDUAL M

00722 WALES HOMESTEAD C

00018 UPPER NOWATER I

00634 LOWER PASTURES I

00504 HAMILTON DOME I

00596 WAGONHOUND I

00656 SAND DRAW I

00591 ZIMMERMAN SPRINGS I

UNALL UNALLOTTED (2009) 1

00636 HAYNES C

00157 SOUTH BUTTE M

00193 LITTLE MUD CREEK I

00571 ZIMMERMAN BUTTES I

00119 BLUEBANK M

00680 LAKE CREEK PASTURE C

00553 RICHMOND I

00524 COTTONWOOD CREEK I

00556 21 CREEK I

00080 NORTH MURPHY DOME I

00097 DEADLINE DRAW M

00558 BUCK CREEK I

00118 SCORPION I

00098 SLOPE 1

00089 BIG BEND I

00607 LAKE I

00562 GARDNER BADLANDS I

00720 PUTNEY PLACE C

00661 THREE PEAKS ANCHOR I

00685 BRAMAH I

00589 KIRBY CREEK I

00570 RED SPRINGS DRAW I

00681 SPRING CREEK I

00501 BLUE SPRINGS I

00537 PADLOCK I

00123 BUFFALO SAND POINT I

00593 HAMILTON RIM M

00071 CHALK BUTTE M

00613 PUTNEY FLAT M

00077 MIDDLE WALKER I

00551 COULEE-MILL IRON M

00582 MILL IRON-EAST M
Worland Approved RMP 581

Appendix O Livestock Grazing

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Allotment Number Allotment Name Management Category

00147 WEST ALLOTMENT I

00146 EAST ALLOTMENT I

00540 BRIDGES C

00191 LOWER BLACK MOUNTAIN 

DRAW I

00608 VASS C

00585 NORTH HART I

00654 AYERS INDIVIDUAL I

00614 RATTLESNAKE I

00533 HOME RANCH I

00210 WILLOW CREEK I

00569 CURTIS I

00205 WEST BLACK MOUNTAIN I

00049 MURPHY DOME I

00568 BASIN I

00158 SEAMAN I

00661 THREE PEAKS ANCHOR I

00078 UPPER WALKER I

00569 CURTIS I

00587 TYPER PASTURE C

00081 LOWER ARNOLD I

00192 UPPER BLACK MOUNTAIN 

DRAW I

00035 BUFFALO CANYON I

00586 SOUTH HART C

00182 BUTTES I

00070 S V I

00610 SOUTH OWL CREEK I

00563 WINTER CAMP I

00051 FARLEY I

00583 MUD CREEK PASTURE C

00082 UPPER ARNOLD I

02547 V PASTURE I

00067 DEETER M

00572 EAGLE DRAW M

02539 RED CANYON I

00592 WILD HORSE BUTTE I

00050 MUD CREEK I

00069 MAHOGANY BUTTE I

02546 MAJOR BASIN I

00124 WEST SIDE SUMMER I

00195 LOWER BLACK MOUNTAIN I

02543 SWALLOW I

00572 EAGLE DRAW M

00088 PATRAS I

00083 K I S I

02512 BILLYS FLATS M

02514 V-H DRAW I

02509 PEAK I

00648 SHUMWAY INDIVIDUAL I

02506 DYE I

02536 BLUE HILL I

02549 HAWKS BUTTE I

02542 STUMP I
582 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix O Livestock Grazing 

Contingency Plans September 2015

Allotment Number Allotment Name Management Category

02507 BRIDGER CREEK I

02505 LOWER RED CANYON I

02559 SLOPE PASTURE I

00206 BEAR CREEK COMMON I

00223 WOOD'S SPLIT ROCK I

00087 MOUNTAIN INDIVIDUAL M

02020 TANNER-MOUNTAIN I

02560 LYSITE CREEK I

02531 JENKS CREEK I

00655 COPPER MOUNTAIN I

02503 GRIDER BASIN I

00125 EAST SIDE SUMMER I

00086 DAUGHERTY DEWITT M

02554 REED CREEK I

00053 RANCH C

02017 HALL BUTTE M

02012 NATRONA M

02559 SLOPE PASTURE I

00090 SPLIT ROCK - V'S I

00204 NORTH OF DITCH I

01068 BOUNDARY WELL 1068 M

01084 THREE M C

00683 SOUTH SLEEPER 1

00510 FERNANDEZ BLU-JAY 1

1Information not available for allotment.

Note: The determination of retirement of grazing privileges of allotments or portions of allotments in Greater 

Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Management Areas would be made upon site specific National Environmental Policy 

Act analysis.

C Custodial 

I Improve 

M Maintain
Worland Approved RMP 583

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Appendix P. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement and Record of Decision Crosswalk 

Tables

Management actions from the Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) correspond generally to decisions listed in this Approved 

RMP, as shown in Table P.1, “Management Actions and Decisions Crosswalk” (p. 583). In many 

cases, the language and stated actions have changed from those listed in the Proposed RMP and 

Final EIS, and some management actions have not been carried forward as decisions in the 

Approved RMP (denoted by “N/A” in the second column of the table). Please note that in some 

cases, corresponding management actions in the Approved RMP may be located in a different 

resource section than they originally appeared in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS. Table P.1,

“Management Actions and Decisions Crosswalk” (p. 583), is ordered sequentially by management 

action in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS. Table P.2, “Maps Crosswalk” (p. 602) and Table P.3,

“Appendices Crosswalk” (p. 606), provide a crosswalk for maps and appendices.

Table P.1. Management Actions and Decisions Crosswalk 

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Management 

Action Numbers

Approved RMP Decision Record Numbers

0000 COMMON TO ALL

0001 0001

0002 0002

0003 0003

1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES

1001 1001

1002 1002

1003 1003

1004 1004

1005 1005

1006 1006

1007 1007

1008 1008

1009 1009

1010 1010

1011 1011

1012 1012

1013 1013

1014 1014

1015 1015

1016 1016

1017 1017

1018 1018

1019 1019

1020 1020

1021 1021

1022 1022

1023 1023

1024 1024

1025 1025
584 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables 

Contingency Plans September 2015

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Management 

Action Numbers

Approved RMP Decision Record Numbers

1026 1026

1027 1027

1028 1028

1029 1029

1030 1030

1031 1031

1032 1032

1033 1033

1034 1034

1035 1035

1036 1036

1037 1037

1038 1038

1039 1039

1040 1040

1041 1041

1042 1042

1043 1043

1044 1044

1045 1045

1046 1046

1047 1047

1048 1048

1049 N/A

1050 1049

1051 1050

1052 1051

2000 MINERAL RESOURCES (MR)

2001 2001

2002 2002

2003 2004

2004 2005

2005 2007

2006 2008

2007 2011

2008 2012

2009 2013

2010 2014

2011 2015

2012 2016

2013 2017

2014 2024

2015 2025

2016 2027

2017 2028

2018 2029

2019 2003

2020 N/A

2021 2006

2022 2009

2023 2010

2024 2018

2025 2019
Worland Approved RMP 585

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Management 

Action Numbers

Approved RMP Decision Record Numbers

2026 2020

2027 2021

2028 2022

2029 2023

2030 N/A

2031 2026

2032 2030

2033 N/A

2034 2031

2035 2032

2036 2033

2037 N/A

2038 N/A

2039 N/A

2040 N/A

2041 2034

2042 2035

2043 2036

2044 2037

2045 2038

2046 2039

2047 2040

2048 2041

2049 2042

2050 2043

2051 2044

3000 FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT (FM)

3001 3001

3002 3002

3003 3003

3004 3004

3005 3005

3006 3006

3007 3007

3008 3008

3009 3009

3010 3010

3011 3011

3012 3012

3013 3013

3014 3014

3015 3015

3016 3016

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR)

4001 4001

4002 4002

4003 4003

4004 4004

4005 4005

4006 4006

4007 4007

4008 4008

4009 4009
586 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables 

Contingency Plans September 2015

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Management 

Action Numbers

Approved RMP Decision Record Numbers

4010 N/A

4011 4010

4012 4011

4013 4012

4014 4013

4015 4014

4016 4015

4017 4016

4018 4017

4019 4018

4020 4019

4021 4020

4022 4021

4023 4022

4024 4023

4025 4024

4026 4025

4027 4026

4028 4027

4029 4028

4030 4029

4031 4030

4032 4031

4033 4032

4034 4033

4035 4034

4036 4035

4037 4036

4038 4037

4039 4038

4040 4039

4041 4040

4042 4041

4043 4042

4044 4043

4045 4044

4046 4045

4047 4046

4048 4047

4049 4048

4050 4049

4051 4050

4052 N/A

4053 4051

4054 4052

4055 4053

4056 4054

4057 4055

4058 4056

4059 4057

4060 4058

4061 4059

4062 4060
Worland Approved RMP 587

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Management 

Action Numbers

Approved RMP Decision Record Numbers

4063 4061

4064 4062

4065 4063

4066 4064

4067 4065

4068 4066

4069 4067

4070 4068

4071 4069

4072 4070

4073 4071

4074 4072

4075 4073

4076 4074

4077 4075

4078 4076

4079 4077

4080 4078

4081 4079

4082 4080

4083 4081

4084 4082

4085 4083

4086 4084

4087 4085

4088 4086

4089 4087

4090 4088

4091 4089

4092 4090

4093 4091

4094 4092

4095 4093

4096 4094

4097 4095

4098 4096

4099 4097

4100 4098

4101 4099

4102 4100

4103 4101

4104 4102

4105 4103

4106 4104

4107 4105

4108 6198

4109 4116

4110 4117

4111 4119

4112 4121

4113 N/A

4114 4122

4115 4125
588 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables 

Contingency Plans September 2015

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Management 

Action Numbers

Approved RMP Decision Record Numbers

4116 4133

4117 4106

4118 4107

4119 4108

4120 4109

4121 4110

4122 4111

7179 4112

7180 4113

7230 4114

7287 4115

4123 4118

4124 4120

4125 4123

4126 4124

4127 N/A

4128 N/A

4129 4131

4130 4132

4131 4126

4132 4127

4133 4128

4134 4129

4135 4130

4136 4134

4137 4135

4138 4136

4139 4137

4140 4138

4141 4139

4142 4140

4143 4141

4144 N/A

4145 4142

4146 4143

4147 4144

4148 4145

4149 4146

4150 N/A

4151 4147

4152 4148

4153 4149

4154 N/A

4155 4150

4156 N/A

5000 HERITAGE AND VISUAL RESOURCES (HR)

5001 5001

5002 5002

5003 5003

5004 5004

5005 5005

5006 5006

5007 5007
Worland Approved RMP 589

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Management 

Action Numbers

Approved RMP Decision Record Numbers

5008 5008

5009 5009

5010 5010

5011 5011

5012 5012

5013 5013

5014 5014

5015 5015

5016 5016

5017 5017

5018 5018

5019 N/A

5020 5019

5021 5020

5022 5021

5023 5022

5024 5023

5025 5024

5026 5025

5027 5026

5028 5027

5029 5028

5030 5029

5031 5030

5032 5031

5033 5032

5034 5033

5035 5034

5036 5035

5037 5036

5038 5037

5039 5038

5040 5039

5041 5040

5042 5041

5043 5042

5044 5043

5045 5044

5046 5045

5047 5046

5048 5047

5049 5048

5050 5049

5051 5050

5052 5051

5053 5052

5054 5053

5055 5054

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR)

6001 6001

6002 6002

6003 6003

6004 N/A
590 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables 

Contingency Plans September 2015

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Management 

Action Numbers

Approved RMP Decision Record Numbers

6005 6004

6006 N/A

6007 N/A

6008 6005

6009 6006

6010 6007

6011 6008

6012 6009

6013 6010

6014 6011

6015 6012

6016 6013

6017 6014

6018 N/A

6019 6015

6020 6016

6021 N/A

6022 6017

6023 6018

6024 6019

6025 6020

6026 6021

6027 6022

6028 6023

6029 6024

6030 6025

6031 6026

6032 6027

6033 6028

6034 6029

6035 6030

6036 N/A

6037 6031

6038 6032

6039 N/A

6040 6033

6041 6034

6042 6035

6043 6036

6044 6037

6045 6038

6046 6039

6047 6040

6048 6041

6049 6042

6050 6043

6051 6044

6052 6045

6053 6046

6054 6047

6055 6048

6056 6049

6057 6050
Worland Approved RMP 591

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Management 

Action Numbers

Approved RMP Decision Record Numbers

6058 6051

6059 6052

6060 6053

6061 6054

6062 6055

6063 6056

6064 6057

6065 N/A

6066 6058

6067 6059

6068 6060

6069 6061

6070 6062

6071 6063

6072 6064

6073 6065

6074 6066

6075 6067

6076 6068

6077 6069

6078 6070

6079 6071

6080 6072

6081 6073

6082 6074

6083 6075

6084 6075

6085 6076

6086 N/A

6087 6077

6088 6078

6089 6079

6090 6080

6091 6081

6092 N/A

6093 6082

6094 6083

6095 6084

6096 6085

6097 6086

6098 6087

6099 6088

6100 6089

6101 6090

6102 6091

6103 6092

6104 6093

6105 6094

6106 6095

6107 6096

6108 6097

6109 6098

6110 6099
592 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables 

Contingency Plans September 2015

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Management 

Action Numbers

Approved RMP Decision Record Numbers

6111 6100

6112 6101

6113 6102

6114 6103

6115 N/A

6116 N/A

6117 N/A

6118 N/A

6119 N/A

6120 N/A

6121 N/A

6122 N/A

6123 6104

6124 6105

6125 6106

6126 6107

6127 6108

6128 6109

6129 6110

6130 6111

6131 6112

6132 6113

6133 6114

6134 6115

6135 6116

6136 6117

6137 6118

6138 6119

6139 6120

6140 6121

6141 6122

6142 6123

6143 6124

6144 6125

6145 6126

6146 6127

6147 6128

6148 6129

6149 6130

6150 6131

6151 6132

6152 6133

6153 6134

6154 6135

6155 6136

6156 6137

6157 6138

6158 6139

6159 6140

6160 6141

6161 6142

6162 6143

6163 6144
Worland Approved RMP 593

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Management 

Action Numbers

Approved RMP Decision Record Numbers

6164 6145

6165 6146

6166 6147

6167 6148

6168 6149

6169 6150

6170 6151

6171 6152

6172 6153

6173 6154

6174 6155

6175 6156

6176 6157

6177 6158

6178 6159

6179 6160

6180 6161

6181 6162

6182 6163

6183 6164

6184 6165

6185 N/A

6186 N/A

6187 N/A

6188 N/A

6189 N/A

6190 N/A

6191 N/A

6192 N/A

6193 N/A

6194 N/A

6195 N/A

6196 N/A

6197 N/A

6198 N/A

6199 N/A

6200 N/A

6201 N/A

6202 N/A

6203 N/A

6204 N/A

6205 N/A

6206 6166

6207 6167

6208 6168

6209 6169

6210 6170

6211 6171

6212 6172

6213 6173

6214 6174

6215 N/A

6216 6175
594 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables 

Contingency Plans September 2015

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Management 

Action Numbers

Approved RMP Decision Record Numbers

6217 6176

6218 6177

6219 6178

6220 6179

6221 6180

6222 6181

6223 6182

6224 6183

6225 6184

6226 6185

6227 6186

6228 6187

6229 6188

6230 6189

6231 6190

6232 6191

6233 6192

6234 6193

6235 N/A

6236 N/A

6237 N/A

6238 N/A

6239 N/A

6240 N/A

6241 N/A

6242 N/A

6243 N/A

6244 N/A

6245 N/A

6246 N/A

6247 N/A

6248 N/A

6249 N/A

6250 N/A

6251 6194

6252 6195

6253 6196

6254 6197

6255 N/A

6256 N/A

6257 N/A

6258 N/A

6259 N/A

6260 N/A

6261 N/A

6262 N/A

6263 N/A

6264 N/A

6265 N/A

6266 N/A

6267 6198

6268 6199
Worland Approved RMP 595

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Management 

Action Numbers

Approved RMP Decision Record Numbers

6269 6200

6270 6201

6271 6202

6272 3203

6273 6204

6274 6205

6275 6206

6276 6207

6277 6208

6278 6209

6279 6210

6280 6211

6281 6212

6282 6213

6283 6214

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD)

7001 7001

7002 7002

7003 7003

7004 7004

7005 7005

7006 7006

7007 7007

7008 7008

7009 7009

7010 7010

7011 7011

7012 7012

7013 7013

7014 7014

7015 7015

7016 7016

7017 7017

7018 7018

7019 7019

7020 7020

7021 7021

7022 7022

7023 N/A

7024 N/A

7025 N/A

7026 N/A

7027 N/A

7028 N/A

7029 N/A

7030 7023

7031 7024

7032 7025

7033 7026

7034 7027

7035 7028

7036 7029

7037 N/A
596 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables 

Contingency Plans September 2015

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Management 

Action Numbers

Approved RMP Decision Record Numbers

7038 N/A

7039 N/A

7040 N/A

7041 N/A

7042 N/A

7043 N/A

7044 N/A

7045 N/A

7046 N/A

7047 N/A

7048 N/A

7049 N/A

7050 N/A

7051 N/A

7052 N/A

7053 N/A

7054 N/A

7055 N/A

7056 N/A

7057 N/A

7058 N/A

7059 N/A

7060 N/A

7061 N/A

7062 N/A

7063 N/A

7064 N/A

7065 N/A

7066 N/A

7067 N/A

7068 N/A

7069 N/A

7070 N/A

7071 N/A

7072 N/A

7073 N/A

7074 N/A

7075 N/A

7076 7030

7077 7031

7078 7032

7079 7033

7080 7034

7081 7035

7082 7036

7083 7037

7084 N/A

7085 N/A

7086 N/A

7087 N/A

7088 N/A

7089 N/A
Worland Approved RMP 597

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Management 

Action Numbers

Approved RMP Decision Record Numbers

7090 N/A

7091 N/A

7092 N/A

7093 N/A

7094 N/A

7095 N/A

7096 N/A

7097 N/A

7098 N/A

7099 N/A

7100 N/A

7101 N/A

7102 N/A

7103 N/A

7104 N/A

7105 N/A

7106 N/A

7107 N/A

7108 N/A

7109 N/A

7110 N/A

7111 N/A

7112 N/A

7113 N/A

7114 N/A

7115 N/A

7116 N/A

7117 N/A

7118 N/A

7119 N/A

7120 N/A

7121 N/A

7122 N/A

7123 N/A

7124 N/A

7125 N/A

7126 N/A

7127 N/A

7128 N/A

7129 N/A

7130 N/A

7131 N/A

7132 N/A

7133 N/A

7134 N/A

7135 N/A

7136 N/A

7137 N/A

7138 N/A

7139 N/A

7140 N/A

7141 N/A
598 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables 

Contingency Plans September 2015

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Management 

Action Numbers

Approved RMP Decision Record Numbers

7142 N/A

7143 N/A

7144 N/A

7145 N/A

7146 N/A

7147 N/A

7148 N/A

7149 N/A

7150 N/A

7151 N/A

7152 N/A

7153 N/A

7154 N/A

7155 N/A

7156 N/A

7157 N/A

7158 N/A

7159 N/A

7160 N/A

7161 N/A

7162 N/A

7163 N/A

7164 N/A

7165 N/A

7166 N/A

7167 N/A

7168 N/A

7169 N/A

7170 N/A

7171 N/A

7172 N/A

7173 N/A

7174 N/A

7175 N/A

7176 N/A

7177 N/A

7178 N/A

7179 4112

7180 4113

7181 N/A

7182 N/A

7183 N/A

7184 N/A

7185 N/A

7186 N/A

7187 N/A

7188 N/A

7189 N/A

7190 N/A

7191 N/A

7192 N/A

7193 N/A
Worland Approved RMP 599

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Management 

Action Numbers

Approved RMP Decision Record Numbers

7194 N/A

7195 N/A

7196 N/A

7197 N/A

7198 N/A

7199 N/A

7200 N/A

7201 N/A

7202 N/A

7203 N/A

7204 N/A

7205 N/A

7206 N/A

7207 N/A

7208 N/A

7209 N/A

7210 N/A

7211 N/A

7212 N/A

7213 N/A

7214 N/A

7215 N/A

7216 N/A

7217 N/A

7218 N/A

7219 N/A

7220 N/A

7221 N/A

7222 N/A

7223 N/A

7224 N/A

7225 N/A

7226 N/A

7227 N/A

7228 N/A

7229 N/A

7230 4114

7231 N/A

7232 N/A

7233 N/A

7234 N/A

7235 N/A

7236 N/A

7237 N/A

7238 N/A

7239 N/A

7240 N/A

7241 N/A

7242 N/A

7243 N/A

7244 N/A

7245 N/A
600 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables 

Contingency Plans September 2015

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Management

Action Numbers

Approved RMP Decision Record Numbers

7246 N/A

7247 N/A

7248 N/A

7249 N/A

7250 N/A

7251 N/A

7252 N/A

7253 N/A

7254 N/A

7255 N/A

7256 N/A

7257 N/A

7258 N/A

7259 N/A

7260 N/A

7261 N/A

7262 N/A

7263 N/A

7264 N/A

7265 N/A

7266 N/A

7267 N/A

7268 N/A

7269 N/A

7270 N/A

7271 N/A

7272 N/A

7273 N/A

7274 N/A

7275 N/A

7276 N/A

7277 N/A

7278 N/A

7279 N/A

7280 N/A

7281 N/A

7282 N/A

7283 N/A

7284 N/A

7285 N/A

7286 N/A

7287 4115

7288 7038

7289 7039

7290 7040

7291 7041

7292 N/A

7293 N/A

7294 N/A

7295 N/A

7296 N/A

7297 N/A
Worland Approved RMP 601

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Management 

Action Numbers

Approved RMP Decision Record Numbers

7298 N/A

7299 N/A

7300 N/A

7301 N/A

7302 7042

7303 7043

7304 7044

7305 7045

7306 7046

7307 N/A

7308 N/A

7309 N/A

7310 N/A

7311 N/A

7312 N/A

7313 N/A

7314 N/A

7315 N/A

7316 N/A

7317 N/A

7318 N/A

7319 N/A

7320 N/A

7321 N/A

7322 N/A

7323 N/A

7324 N/A

7325 N/A

7326 7047

7327 7048

7328 7049

7329 7050

7330 7051

7331 7052

7332 7053

7333 7054

7334 7055

7335 7056

7336 7057

7337 N/A

7338 7058

7339 7059

8000 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES (SR)

8001 8001

8002 8002

8003 8003

8004 8004

8005 8005

8006 8006

8007 8007

8008 8008

8009 8009
602 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables 

Contingency Plans September 2015

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Management 

Action Numbers

Approved RMP Decision Record Numbers

8010 8010

8011 8011

8012 8012

8013 8013

8014 8014

8015 8015

8016 8016

8017 8017

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

N/A Not applicable

RMP Resource Management Plan

Table P.2. Maps Crosswalk 

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Approved RMP

N/A Map 1-1. Worland Planning Area, Surface Management 

and Sub-Surface Estate

N/A Map 1-2. Worland Planning Area, Greater Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Management Areas across All Jurisdictions

N/A Map 1-3. Worland Decision Area, Greater Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Management Areasfor BLM Administered Lands

N/A Map 2-1. Worland Habitat Management Areas

N/A Map 2-2. Worland Livestock Grazing

N/A Map 2-3. Worland Fluid Minerals (Oil and Gas)

N/A Map 2-4. Worland Locatable Minerals

N/A Map 2-5. Worland Salable Minerals (Mineral Materials)

N/A Map 2-6. Worland Wind Energy

N/A Map 2-7. Worland Designated Utility Corridors

N/A Map 2-8. Worland Rights-of-Way

N/A Map 2-9. Worland Land Tenure

N/A Map 2-10. Worland Trails & Travel Management (OHV)

Map 1. Surface Ownership within the Bighorn Basin 

Planning Area

Map 1-4. Surface Ownership within the Worland Field 

Office

Map 2. Mineral Ownership within the Bighorn Basin 

Planning Area

Map 1-5. Mineral Ownership within the Worland Field 

Office

Map 3. Physical Resources – Water – All Alternatives Map 3-1. Physical Resources – Water

Map 4. Mineral Resources – Locatable –

Bentonite-Bearing Strata – All Alternatives

Map 3-2. Mineral Resources – Locatable –

Bentonite-Bearing Strata

Map 5. MineralResources – Locatable – Gypsum-Bearing 

Strata – All Alternatives

Map 3-3. Mineral Resources – Locatable –

Gypsum-Bearing Strata

Map 6. Mineral Resources – Leasable – Coal-Bearing 

Strata – All Alternatives

Map 3-5. Mineral Resources – Leasable – Coal-Bearing 

Strata

Map 7. Mineral Resources – Leasable – Existing Oil and 

Gas Leases – All Alternatives

Map 3-7. Mineral Resources – Leasable Existing Oil and 

Gas Leases

Map 8. Mineral Resources – Salable-Mineral Materials 

Sites – All Alternatives

Map 3-1. Mineral Resources – Salable-Mineral Materials 

Sites

Map 9. Mineral Resources Locatable – Alternative A N/A

Map 10. Mineral Resources Locatable – Alternative B N/A

Map 11. Mineral Resources Locatable – Alternative C N/A

Map 12. Mineral Resources Locatable – Alternative D 

(Proposed RMP) and F

Map 3-4. Mineral Resources Locatable

Map 13. Mineral Resources Locatable – Alternative E N/A
Worland Approved RMP 603

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Approved RMP

Map 14. Mineral Resources Leasable – Geothermal –

Alternative A

N/A

Map 15. Mineral Resources Leasable – Geothermal –

Alternatives B and E

N/A

Map 16. Mineral Resources Leasable – Geothermal –

Alternative C

N/A

Map 17. Mineral Resources Leasable – Geothermal –

Alternatives D (Proposed RMP) and F

Map 3-6. Mineral Resources Leasable – Geothermal

Map 18. Mineral Resources Leasable – Oil and Gas –

Alternative A

N/A

Map 19. Mineral Resources Leasable – Oil and Gas –

Alternative B

N/A

Map 20. Mineral Resources Leasable – Oil and Gas –

Alternative C

N/A

Map 21. Mineral Resources Leasable – Oil and Gas –

Alternative D (Proposed RMP)

Map 3-8. Mineral Resources Leasable – Oil and Gas

Map 22. Mineral Resources Leasable – Oil and Gas –

Alternative E

N/A

Map 23. Mineral Resources Leasable – Oil and Gas –

Alternative F

N/A

Map 24. Mineral Resources Leasable – Oil and Gas 

Management Areas – Alternative C

N/A

Map 25. Mineral Resources Leasable – Oil and Gas 

Management Areas – Alternatives D (Proposed RMP) 

and F

Map 3-9. Mineral Resources Leasable – Oil and Gas 

Management Areas

Map 26. Mineral Resources – Leasable – Producing Oil 

and Gas Fields – All Alternatives

Map 3-10. Mineral Resources – Leasable – Producing 

Oil and Gas Fields

Map 27. Mineral Resources Leasable – Oil and 

Gas-Existing Leases – Alternative E

N/A

Map 28. Mineral Resources Leasable – Oil and 

Gas-Existing Leases – Alternative F

N/A

Map 29. Mineral Resources – Salable – Sand and Gravel 

Deposits – All Alternatives

N/A

Map 30. Mineral Resources Salable – Alternative A N/A

Map 31. Mineral Resources Salable – Alternative B N/A

Map 32. Mineral Resources Salable – Alternative C N/A

Map 33. Mineral Resources Salable – Alternatives D 

(Proposed RMP) and F

Map 3-12. Mineral Resources – Salable

Map 34. Mineral Resources Salable – Alternative E N/A

Map 35. Mineral Resources – Master Leasing Plan –

Alternatives D (Proposed RMP) and F

Map 3-13. Mineral Resources – Master Leasing Plan

Map 36. Biological Resources – Vegetation – All 

Alternatives

Map 3-15. Biological Resources – Vegetation

Map 37. Biological Resources – Wildlife-Management 

Areas – Alternative D (Proposed RMP)

Map 3-14. Biological Resources – Wildlife-Management 

Areas

Map 38. Biological Resources – Wildlife-Management 

Areas – Alternative F

N/A

Map 39. Biological Resources – Special Status 

Species-Wildlife – Alternative A

N/A

Map 40. Biological Resources – Special Status 

Species-Wildlife – Alternatives B and E

N/A

Map 41. Biological Resources – Special Status 

Species-Wildlife – Alternative C

N/A

Map 42. Biological Resources – Special Status 

Species-Wildlife – Alternative D (Proposed RMP)

Map 3-17. Biological Resources – Special Status Species

– Wildlife
604 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables 

Contingency Plans September 2015

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Approved RMP

Map 42a. Biological Resources – Special Status Species

– Greater Sage-Grouse

N/A

Map 43. Biological Resources – Special Status 

Species-Wildlife – Alternative F

N/A

Map 44. Biological Resources – Fish and Wildlife 

Resources – All Alternatives

Map 3-16. Biological Resources – Fish and Wildlife 

Resources

Map 45. Biological Resources – Wild Horses – All 

Alternatives

Map 3-18. Biological Resources – Wild Horses

Map 46. Heritage and Visual Resources – Paleontological 

Resources – All Alternatives

Map 3-19. Heritage and Visual Resources –

Paleontological Resources

Map 47. Heritage and Visual Resources – Visual 

Resource Management – Alternative A

N/A

Map 48. Heritage and Visual Resources – Visual 

Resource Management – Alternatives B and E

N/A

Map 49. Heritage and Visual Resources – Visual 

Resource Management – Alternative C

N/A

Map 50. Heritage and Visual Resources – Visual 

Resource Management – Alternative D (Proposed RMP)

Map 3-20. Heritage and Visual Resources – Visual 

Resource Management

Map 51. Land Resources – Lands and Realty Retention, 

Disposal, and Acquisition – Alternative A

N/A

Map 52. Land Resources – Lands and Realty Retention, 

Disposal, and Acquisition – Alternative B

N/A

Map 53. Land Resources – Lands and Realty Retention, 

Disposal, and Acquisition – Alternative C

N/A

Map 54. Land Resources – Lands and Realty Retention, 

Disposal, and Acquisition – Alternatives D (Proposed 

RMP) and F

Map 3-21. Land Resources – Lands and Realty Retention, 

Disposal, and Acquisition

Map 55. Land Resources – Lands and Realty Retention, 

Disposal, and Acquisition – Alternative E

N/A

Map 56. Land Resources – Renewable Energy Potential

– All Alternatives

Map 3-22. Land Resources – Renewable Energy Potential

Map 57. Land Resources – Renewable Energy –

Alternative B

N/A

Map 58. Land Resources – Renewable Energy –

Alternative C

N/A

Map 59. Land Resources – Renewable Energy –

Alternative D (Proposed RMP)

Map 3-23. Land Resources – Renewable Energy

Map 60. Land Resources – Renewable Energy –

Alternative E

N/A

Map 61. Land Resources – Renewable Energy –

Alternative F

N/A

Map 62. Physical Resources – Soil Slope and Erosion 

Hazard – All Alternatives

Map 3-25. Physical Resources – Soil Slope and Erosion 

Hazard

Map 63. Land Resources – Rights-of-Way and Corridors

– Alternative A

N/A

Map 64. Land Resources – Rights-of-Way and Corridors

– Alternative B

N/A

Map 65. Land Resources – Rights-of-Way and Corridors

– Alternative C

N/A

Map 66. Land Resources – Rights-of-Way and Corridors

– Alternative D (Proposed RMP)

Map 3-24. Land Resources – Rights-of-Way and 

Corridors

Map 67. Land Resources – Rights-of-Way and Corridors

– Alternative E

N/A

Map 68. Land Resources – Rights-of-Way and Corridors

– Alternative F

N/A
Worland Approved RMP 605

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Approved RMP

Map 69. Land Resources – Travel Management 

Designations – Alternative A

N/A

Map 70. Land Resources – Travel Management 

Designations – Alternative B

N/A

Map 71. Land Resources – Travel Management 

Designations – Alternative C

N/A

Map 72. Land Resources – Travel Management 

Designations – Alternative D (Proposed RMP)

Map 3-26. Land Resources – Travel Management 

Designations

Map 73. Land Resources – Travel Management 

Designations – Alternative E

N/A

Map 74. Land Resources – Travel Management 

Designations – Alternative F

N/A

Map 75. Land Resources – Recreation – Alternative A N/A

Map 76. Land Resources – Recreation – Alternatives B 

and E

N/A

Map 77. Land Resources – Recreation – Alternative C N/A

Map 78. Land Resources – Recreation – Alternatives D 

(Proposed RMP) and F

Map 3-27. Land Resources – Recreation

Map 79. Land Resources – Inventoried Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics – All Alternatives

N/A

Map 80. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing Allotment 

Categories – All Alternatives

Map 3-28. Land Resources –– Livestock Grazing –

Allotment Categories

Map 81. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing-Closures –

Alternatives A, C, D (Proposed RMP), and F

Map 3-29. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing –

Closures

Map 82. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing-Closures

– Alternative B

N/A

Map 83. Land Resources – Livestock Grazing-Closures

– Alternative E

N/A

Map 84. Special Designations – Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern and other Management Areas

– Alternative A

N/A

Map 85. Special Designations – Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern and other Management Areas

– Alternative B

N/A

Map 86. Special Designations – Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern and other Management Areas

– Alternative C

N/A

Map 87. Special Designations – Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern and other Management Areas – 

Alternative D (Proposed RMP)

Map 3-30. Special Designations – Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern and other Management Areas

Map 88. Special Designations – Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern and other Management Areas

– Alternative E

N/A

Map 89. Special Designations – Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern and other Management Areas

– Alternative F

N/A

Map 90. Special Designations – National Back Country 

Byways – All Alternatives

N/A

Map 91. Special Designations – National Historic Trail 

and Other Trails – Alternatives A, B, C, and E

Map 3-32. Special Designations – Historic Trails

Map 92. Special Designations – National Historic Trail 

and Other Trails – Alternatives D (Proposed RMP) and F

N/A

Map 93. Special Designations – Wilderness Study Areas 

and National Historic Landmark – All Alternatives

Map 3-31. Special Designations – Wilderness Study 

Areas
606 Worland Approved RMP

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables 

Contingency Plans September 2015

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Approved RMP

Map 94. Special Designations – Wild and Scenic Rivers

– Alternatives A, B, and E

N/A

Map 95. Socioeconomic Resources – Health and Safety –

All Alternatives

Map 3-33. Socioeconomic Resources – Health and Safety

Map 96. Physical Resources – Geology – All Alternatives N/A

Map 96. Physical Resources – Geology – All Alternatives

- Legend

N/A

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

N/A Not applicable

RMP Resource Management Plan

Table P.3. Appendices Crosswalk 

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Approved RMP

N/A Appendix A Maps

Appendix A Comment Analysis N/A

Appendix B Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Guidance Appendix E Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Guidance

Appendix C Monitoring and Evaluation Appendix H Monitoring and Evaluation

Appendix D Implementation Appendix L Implementation

Appendix E Consultation Letters and Cooperating 

Agency Position Statements

N/A

Appendix F Special Designations: Wild and Scenic 

Rivers and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

N/A

Appendix G Lease Stipulations, including Exception, 

Modification, and Waiver Criteria

Appendix B Oil and Gas Lease Notices and Lease 

Stipulations, including Exception, Modification, and 

Waiver Criteria

Appendix H Wyoming Bureau of Land Management 

Mitigation Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and 

Disruptive Activities

Appendix F Wyoming Bureau of Land Management 

Mitigation Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and 

Disruptive Activities

Appendix I Standard Oil and Gas Stipulations Appendix B Standard Oil and Gas Stipulations and Lease 

Stipulations, including Exception, Modification, and 

Waiver Criteria

Appendix J Bighorn Basin Air Resource Management 

Plan

Appendix M Bighorn Basin Air Resource Management 

Plan

Appendix K Biological Resources Appendix N Seasonal Raptor Stipulations for All 

Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities

Appendix L Required Design Features and Best 

Management Practices

Appendix C Required Design Features and Best 

Management Practices

Appendix M Land Disposal and Acquisition Appendix I Land Disposal and Acquisition

Appendix N Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands N/A

Appendix O Recreation Management Appendix J Recreation Management

Appendix P Livestock Grazing Appendix O Livestock Grazing

Appendix Q Economic Impact Analysis Methodology N/A

Appendix R Comprehensive Travel and Transportation 

Management

N/A

Appendix S Lands with Wilderness Characteristics N/A

Appendix T Surface Disturbance and Reasonable 

Foreseeable Actions

N/A

Appendix U Technical Support Document for Air Quality N/A

Appendix V Water Erosion Prediction Project Technical 

Support Document

N/A

Appendix W Utilization Levels in the Planning Area N/A

Appendix X Visual Resource Inventory N/A

Appendix Y Greater Sage-Grouse Implementation 

Strategy

Appendix D Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management 

Strategy
Worland Approved RMP 607

Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision Crosswalk Tables

September 2015 Contingency Plans

Proposed RMP and Final EIS Approved RMP

Appendix Z Federal Oil and Gas Operations on 

Split-Estate Lands

Appendix G Federal Oil and Gas Operations on 

Split-Estate Lands

N/A Appendix K Biological Opinion

N/A Appendix P Final Environmental Impact Statement and 

Record of Decision Crosswalk

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

N/A Not applicable

RMP Resource Management Plan