Draft EIS Appendix K 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment K-1 

APPENDIX K—DRAFT GREATER SAGE-GROUSE 

AMENDMENT FOR THE LAND AND RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT PLANS: BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL 

FOREST, MEDICINE BOW NATIONAL FOREST, 

THUNDER BASIN NATIONAL GRASSLAND 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE – ALTERNATIVE E 

Current as of 09/19/2013 

K.1 FOREST SERVICE PLAN COMPONENTS

Under the 1982 Planning Rule, a National Forest or National Grassland Land and Resource Management 

Plan (LRMP) contains the following six plan components: (1) goals and objectives, including desired 

conditions; (2) standards and guidelines; (3) management areas and management area direction 

(management prescriptions); (4) designation of suitable timber land and establishment of an allowable 

sale quantity, and identification of other suitable uses; (5) wilderness recommendations; (6) monitoring 

and evaluation requirements. Each of these components has a specific definition and purpose in a plan 

and must be clearly identified and succinctly described following the direction/guidance found in the 

planning rule (36 CFR subpart 219), planning manual (FSM 1920), planning handbook (FSH 1909.12). 

Implementation tasks are site-specific on-the-ground actions and are typically not addressed in LRMPs 

but may be listed in a “Possible Action” Appendix. 

A Desired Condition (DC) is the plan component that states the “vision” for the unit, in whole or in part, 

describing the social, economic, and ecological attributes toward which management of the plan area is to 

be directed. The Goals listed in Chapter 2 of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) were 

translated into DC in Table K-1. 

Table K-1. Forest Service Desired Conditions for Alternative E 

Goals as written in the DEIS for Alternative E Forest Service Language for Desired 

Conditions for Alternative E

Conserve, recover, and enhance sage-grouse habitat 

on a landscape scale consistent with local, state, and 

federal management plans and policies, as practical, 

while providing for multiple use of BLM administered 

lands and National Forest System Lands.

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat is conserved, recovered, 

and enhanced on a landscape scale consistent with 

local, state, and federal management plans and 

policies.

Maintain and/or increase sage-grouse abundance and 

distribution by conserving, enhancing or restoring the 

sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend 

in cooperation with other state, local, industry, 

permittee and conservation partners.

Greater Sage-Grouse abundance and distribution is 

maintained and/or increased by conserving, enhancing,

or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which 

populations depend in cooperation with other state, 

local, industry, permittee, and conservation partners.

Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal habitats are managed 

and habitat connectivity is maintained to support 

population objectives set by the State of Wyoming in 

cooperation with the Forest Service. (This text was 

translated from Objective #6. See table below.)
Appendix K Draft EIS 

K-2 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Objectives are projections of measurable and time-specific outcomes or accomplishments that, if 

achieved, would contribute to maintaining or reaching DCs during the plan period. Objectives are not 

requirements, however. Each objective must relate to a DC. Objectives are: potential outcomes, results, or 

things to accomplish. Objectives must not imply a program of work or a list of projects. Objectives are 

realistic stops along the way used to gauge our progress. Objectives listed in Chapter 2 of the DEIS were 

translated into DC in Table K-1. 

Table K-2. Forest Service Objectives for Alternative E 

Objectives as Written in the DEIS Forest Service Language for Objectives for 

Alternative E

1) In cooperation with State of Wyoming and its 

agencies, local governments, private landowners, local 

sage-grouse working groups, partners and 

stakeholders, develop site-specific conservation 

strategies to maintain or enhance sage-grouse habitats 

and habitat connectivity.

Develop site-specific conservation strategies to 

maintain or enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitats and 

habitat connectivity by _________ (insert date) in 

cooperation with State of Wyoming and its agencies, 

local governments, private landowners, local Greater 

Sage-Grouse working groups, partners and 

stakeholders.

2) Enhance quality/suitable habitat to support the 

expansion of sage-grouse populations on federally 

administered lands within the planning areas.

Enhance an average of ___ acres (insert quantity) per 

year of quality/suitable habitat to support the expansion 

of Greater Sage-Grouse populations on National Forest 

System Lands.

3) Manage sage-grouse seasonal habitats and maintain 

habitat connectivity to support population objectives set 

by the State of Wyoming in cooperation with the 

agencies.

See Desired Conditions above.

4) Identify and prioritize opportunities for habitat 

enhancement and conservation within sage-grouse 

core habitat areas based on threats and the ability to 

manage sage-grouse habitat.

4) By ____ (insert date), identify and prioritize 

opportunities for habitat enhancement and conservation 

within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat areas based 

on threats and the ability to manage Greater SageGrouse habitat.

5) Restore native (or desirable) plants and create 

landscape patterns which most benefit sage-grouse.

5) Restore native (or desirable) plants and create 

landscape patterns which most benefit Greater SageGrouse on an average of ________ acres (insert 

quantity) per year.

6) Develop specific objectives to conserve, enhance or 

restore sage-grouse priority habitat based on 

Ecological Site Descriptions (ESD) (Forest Service may 

use other methods) and BLM land health evaluations 

(including within wetland and riparian areas) taking into 

account site history (historic treatments or habitat 

manipulations) that have changed the soil chemistry 

possibly altering the ESD. If an effective grazing system 

that meets sage-grouse habitat requirements is not 

already in place, analyze at least one alternative that 

conserves, restores, or enhances sage-grouse habitat 

in the NEPA document prepared for the permit renewal 

(Doherty et al. 2011b, Williams et al. 2011).

6) By ____ (insert date), develop specific objectives to 

conserve, enhance, or restore sage-grouse priority 

habitat. These objectives must be measurable and tied 

to baseline monitoring data or land health 

assessments/evaluations.

7) Establish measurable objectives related to sagegrouse habitat from baseline monitoring data, ESDs 

(Forest Service may use other methods), or land health 

assessments/evaluations.

Combined with Objective #6.
Draft EIS Appendix K 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment K-3 

Objectives as Written in the DEIS Forest Service Language for Objectives for 

Alternative E

8) Manage for vegetation composition and structure 

consistent with ecological site potential (Forest Service

may use other methods) to achieve sage-grouse 

seasonal habitat objectives.

This Objective will be translated into a Required Design 

Feature.

9) Incorporate available site information collected using 

the Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework or 

similar methods to evaluate existing resource 

conditions and to develop any necessary resource 

solutions in cooperation with State of Wyoming and its 

agencies, the local governments, private landowners, 

project proponents, partners, and stakeholders.

This Objective will be translated into a Required Design 

Feature.

10) Incorporate management practices that will provide 

for maintenance and/or enhancement of sage-grouse 

habitats, including specific attention to maintenance of 

desired understories of sagebrush plant communities. 

When developing objectives for residual cover and 

species diversity, identify the ecological site types 

within the planning area and refer to the appropriate 

ESDs (Forest Service may use other methods).

This Objective will be translated into a Required Design 

Feature.

11) In determining appropriate management actions 

that will be considered, refer to the document, “Grazing 

Influence, Management, and Objective Development in 

Wyoming's Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat” (Cagney et 

al. 2010) for guidance. This peer reviewed document is 

the result of a collaborative effort in Wyoming to ensure 

proper livestock grazing practices with sage-grouse 

habitats. It is the culmination of efforts to gather and 

integrate current knowledge and practices regarding 

livestock grazing in respect to important sage-grouse 

habitats within Wyoming.

This Objective will be translated into a Required Design 

Feature.

Suitable Uses (See interim directive id_1909.12-2008-2, FSH 1909.12, section 11.14.) Suitable uses 

delineate which uses are permitted, restricted, or prohibited, and may include stipulations or restrictions. 

Suitable uses also identify lands where specific uses are excluded to protect resource values, or where 

certain lands are open or closed in response to legislative, regulatory, or policy requirements. No suitable 

uses are described in this plan amendment. 

Special Areas (See interim directive id_1909.12-2008-2, FSH 1909.12, section 11.15.) No Special Areas 

are proposed in this plan amendment. 

Standards guide agency action. A standard is an absolute requirement to be met in the design of projects 

and activities. A project or activity is consistent with a standard when its design is in accord with the 

explicit provisions of the standard; variance from a standard in any way is not allowed. Standards for this 

plan amendment are listed in the Table K-3. 

Guidelines describe the technical specifications to design projects and activities. A project or activity can 

be consistent with a guideline in one of two ways: (1) the project or activity design is in accord with the 

explicit provisions of the guideline, or (2) the project or activity design varies from the explicit provisions 

of the guidelines but is as effective in meeting the purpose of the guideline to maintain or contribute to the 

attainment of relevant desired conditions and objectives. Guidelines should not be written in terms of a 

mandatory command or prohibition, but in terms of project design criteria that “should” or “should not” 
Appendix K Draft EIS 

K-4 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

be employed. Guidelines must use words like “should,” “consider,” “generally,” or similar language so as 

not to “require,” “commit,” “compel,” and so on. Guidelines for this plan amendment are listed in the 

Table K-1. 

A “Possible Actions” Appendix may contain a brief summary of the types of actions, projects, or 

activities that may occur in the next three to five years to maintain or move toward the desired conditions.

This appendix must explicitly state that the actions described are not commitments by the Agency to 

perform that work but are provided as a statement of “possible actions.” Possible Actions are not 

described for this plan amendment. 

Required Design Features – Best management practices (BMP) are measures or recommended 

management practices. In contrast, required design features (RDF) listed in the Table K-3 are “required” 

to ensure regulatory certainty and the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse. Because of site-specific 

circumstances, some RDFs may not apply to all activities (e.g., a resource or conflict is not present on a 

given site) and/or may require slight variations. Proposed variations will be analyzed and may be applied 

in the site specific permitting process. All variations will require appropriate analysis and disclosure as 

part of activity authorization. It is anticipated that variations will be approved in very limited 

circumstances and only in coordination with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) and/or 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. RDFs and other mitigation selected for implementation will be identified 

in the project level decision documents. The agency and/or proponent must implement all identified 

measures because they are commitments made as part of the agency decision. 

The following table displays the draft language proposed for Land and Resource Management Plans for 

the Preferred Alternative (Alternative E) for the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Medicine Bow National 

Forest, and the Thunder Basin National Forest. The draft Forest Service language is displayed in 

comparison to BLM management actions displayed in Table 2-1 in Chapter 2 of this document. 

Table K-3. Forest Service Translation of Management Actions into Standards, Guidelines, 

Objectives, and Required Design Feature for Alternative E. 

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

#1

Continue to support the development of statewide 

sage-grouse seasonal habitat models for the State 

of Wyoming. 

Required Design Feature (RDF).

#2

Field Offices and Ranger Districts will work with 

project proponents, partners, and stakeholders to 

avoid or minimize impacts and/or implement direct 

mitigation (e.g. relocating disturbance, timing 

restrictions, etc.), and utilize BMPs and off-site 

compensatory mitigation where appropriate.

RDF

#3

Utilize the Wyoming Sage-grouse Implementation 

Team (SGIT) and Local Working Group (LWG) 

plans or other state or cooperatively-developed 

plans, analyses, and other sources of information to 

guide development of conservation objectives for 

local management of sage-grouse habitats. The 

BLM and Forest Service will collaborate with the 

State of WY and appropriate federal agencies to 

develop appropriate conservation objectives. The 

BLM and Forest Service will collaborate with 

appropriate federal and state agencies as directed 

under the Governor’s Executive Order 13-3 in 

defining a framework for evaluating situations to 

determine if a significant causal relationship exists 

MA #3 will be converted to an Objective.
Draft EIS Appendix K 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment K-5 

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

between improper grazing (by wildlife or wild 

horses or livestock) and Greater Sage-Grouse 

conservation objectives where conservation 

objectives are not being achieved on federal land.

#4

Include the collection of baseline data and outline 

post-project monitoring components into the project 

planning, as appropriate and necessary.

RDF

#5

The BLM/Forest Service will coordinate new 

recommendations, mitigation, and conservation 

measures applied for sage-grouse with the WGFD 

and other appropriate agencies, and local 

government cooperators, as well as the Wyoming 

SGIT. These measures will be analyzed in sitespecific NEPA documents, as necessary.

RDF

#6

Apply appropriate seasonal restrictions for 

implementing vegetation management treatments 

according to the type of seasonal habitats present 

in a priority area. Vegetation treatments must 

include monitoring to determine achievement of 

objectives and their long-term success.

Greater Sage-Grouse Seasonal Restrictions 

Standard: 

Apply appropriate seasonal restrictions in Greater 

Sage-Grouse core habitat for implementing 

vegetation management treatments and according 

to the type of seasonal habitats present. For utility 

transmission projects, construction should occur 

between July 1 and March 14 (or between July 1 

and November 30 in winter concentration areas).

Within Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat, 

apply appropriate sage-grouse seasonal timing 

constraints to construction of new right-of-ways 

(ROW) and special use authorizations (SUA) (This 

text was from MA #27).

Monitoring Plan

Vegetation treatments must include monitoring to 

determine achievement of objectives and their 

long-term success.

#7

Ensure site-specific, measurable, conservation and 

mitigation objectives are included in project 

planning within sage-grouse habitats.

Required Design Feature.

#8

Each BLM and Forest Service planning unit will 

develop landscape-scale restoration, conservation, 

and maintenance strategies, including special 

management of seasonal habitats and identified 

connectivity zones outside of Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core/Priority Habitat Areas, working with voluntary 

partners and cooperating agencies. 

These strategies must be coordinated and 

reconciled with adjoining management entities that 

share habitats or populations.

MA #8 will be converted to an Objective.

#9

Design all range projects in a manner that 

minimizes potential for invasive species 

establishment. Monitor for, and treat invasive 

species associated with existing range 

improvements.

RDF

#10

Apply required design features (Appendix B) as 

mandatory Stipulations/Conditions of Approval

(COA) within priority/core sage-grouse habitat for 

fluid minerals, travel management, lands and realty, 

range management, wild horse and burro, solid 

RDF
Appendix K Draft EIS 

K-6 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

(leasable minerals (coal), locatable minerals, West 

Nile Virus, mineral materials, non-energy solid 

leasable minerals, vegetation management, fire 

and fuels management, and noise.

#11

Integrated vegetation management would be used 

to control, suppress, and eradicate, where possible, 

noxious and invasive species per BLM Handbook 

H-1740-2 and Forest Service Manual 2080.

RDF

#12

Existing Notices and Approved Plans of Operations 

under 43 CFR 38091: For projects that overlap 

priority/core habitat areas, operators may be 

requested to submit modifications to the accepted 

notice or approved plan of operations so that the 

operations minimally impact core area habitats. The 

Authorized Officer (AO) may convey to the operator 

suggested conservation measures, based upon the 

notice or plan level operations and the geographic 

area of those operations [also called the project 

area which is defined in CFR 3809.5]. These 

suggested conservation measures include 

measures that support the overall goals and 

objectives of the priority/core population area 

strategy and may not be reasonable or applicable 

to the BLM/Forest Service’s determination of 

whether the proposed operations will cause 

unnecessary or undue degradation under 43 CFR 

3809.5. The request containing the suggested 

conservation measures must make clear that the 

operator’s compliance is not mandatory. 

Notices or Plans of Operation, or modifications 

thereto, submitted following the issuance of this 

guidance: As part of the 15-day completeness 

review of notices [or modifications thereto] and 30-

day completeness review of plans of operations [or 

modifications thereto], the proposed project area(s) 

where exploration, development, mining, access 

and reclamation would take place should be 

reviewed for overlap of sage-grouse priority/core 

habitat areas in the corporate Geographic 

Information System (GIS) database. If there is 

overlap, the BLM/Forest Service AO may notify the 

operator of ways that they may minimize impacts to 

core area habitats and request the operator to 

amend its notice or plan to include such measures. 

The request to amend the submitted notice or plan 

of operations must make clear that the operator’s 

compliance is not mandatory and that including 

such measures is not a requirement for 

completeness of either the notice or a plan of 

operations, nor is it a condition of acceptance of the 

notice or approval of the plan of operations.

RDF

#13 As new occupied sage-grouse habitat is found or 

occurs either through additional inventories or 

New Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Designation 

Standard.

 

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

exploration on tunnel sites and mineral processing operations on mill sites. The location and maintenance of claims and 

sites are regulated under 43 CFR Subpart 3830. 
Draft EIS Appendix K 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment K-7 

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

expansion into previously un-occupied habitat, the 

agencies will incorporate these areas into the 

general sage-grouse habitat category and manage 

them as such, until the earliest review occurs by the 

SGIT. At that time they will be considered for 

priority/core habitat status or continue to be 

managed as general habitat, and will be added to 

the statewide map at that time.

As new occupied sage-grouse habitat is found or 

occurs either through additional inventories or 

expansion into previously un-occupied habitat, 

manage these areas according to 

Forest/Grassland Plan direction for general 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat until the earliest 

review occurs by the SGIT. After SGIT review and 

designation, apply appropriate management 

standards and guidelines for Greater Sage-Grouse

core, general or non-habitat.

#14

Contribute to actions that help to ground-truth the 

statewide sage-grouse seasonal habitat models for 

the State of Wyoming.

RDF

#15

Use the Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment 

Framework or best available assessment tool 

(approved by the AO/Responsible Official) when 

assessing or evaluating sage-grouse habitats at 

multiple scales.

RDF

#16

The official Wyoming sage-grouse lek database is 

maintained by the WGFD in accordance with 

Appendix 4B of the Umbrella Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) between the WGFD and the 

BLM/Forest Service (WGFD and BLM 1990). 

The MOU states that agencies will meet at least 

annually to coordinate and review the accuracy of 

data and incorporate the most up-to-date 

information.

MA #16 will be converted to an Objective.

#17

Many sage-grouse seasonal habitats within and 

outside of core habitat areas are encumbered by 

valid existing rights, such as mineral leases or 

existing rights-of-way. Fluid mineral leases often 

will include less stringent lease stipulations than the 

timing, distance, and density requirements 

identified for consideration in this policy. Agencies 

(BLM/Forest Service) will work with proponents 

holding valid existing leases that include less 

stringent lease stipulations than the timing, 

distance, and density restrictions described within 

this plan to ensure that measurable sage-grouse 

conservation objectives (such as, but not limited to, 

consolidation of infrastructure to reduce habitat 

fragmentation and loss, and effective conservation 

of seasonal habitats and habitat connectivity to 

support management objectives set by the WGFD)

are included in all project proposals.

RDF

#18

Limit motorized travel to existing roads, primitive 

roads, and trails at a minimum, until such time as 

travel management planning is complete and 

routes are either designated or closed within sagegrouse priority/core habitats.

Continue Current Management.

Forest/National Grassland Plans do not need to be 

amended to add this direction as a standard or 

guideline because travel management is complete 

and all National Forest System Lands are closed 

to off road/off trail motorized vehicle use.

#19

Complete activity level travel plans within five years 

of the record of decision (ROD) for this planning 

effort. During activity level planning, where 

appropriate, designate routes in priority habitat with 

current administrative/agency purpose or need to 

MA #19 will be converted to an Objective. Within

five years of the record of decision for this plan

amendment, assess existing travel plans for 

consistency with Greater Sage-Grouse

conservation objectives.
Appendix K Draft EIS 

K-8 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

administrative access only. Existing plans should 

be assessed for consistency with sage-grouse 

conservation objectives.

#20

Construct roads needed for production activities to 

minimum design standards within sage-grouse 

priority/core habitats, in compliance with the DDCT.

RDF

#21

Field Office and Ranger District staff will work with 

project proponents (including those within the 

BLM/Forest Service) and the WGFD to site their 

projects in locations that meet the purpose and 

need for their project, but have been determined to 

contain the least sensitive habitats, whether inside 

or outside of sage-grouse priority/core habitat 

areas.

RDF

#22

Evaluate opportunities to coordinate management 

plans and strategies on multiple allotments where 

coordination under a single management 

plan/strategy would result in enhancing Greater 

Sage-Grouse populations or its habitat as 

determined in coordination with the State wildlife 

agency and with project proponents, partners, and 

stakeholders

RDF

#23

The Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse 9-plan 

RMP/LRMP Amendments (hereafter, land use 

plans [LUP]) will include the requirement for 

the development of EIS/project level adaptive 

management strategies in support of the population 

management objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse 

set by the State of Wyoming (State of WY EO 

2011-05). These adaptive management strategies 

will be developed in partnership with the WGFD, 

project proponents, partners, and stakeholders and 

will incorporate the best available science. The 

purpose of these strategies 

is to ensure amelioration of Greater Sage-Grouse 

population declines by providing the framework in 

which management will be changed, if negative 

impacts are detected through a rigorous monitoring 

program.

RDF

#24

All existing LUPs decisions will be retained unless 

vacated or modified by decisions in this plan 

amendment.

RDF

#25

The Wyoming BLM and Forest Service typically 

manage the public lands to meet objectives of the 

State of Wyoming. At this time the population 

objective is to maintain at least 67% of the 2005-

2008 Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Population 

within the State of Wyoming. The Wyoming BLM 

and Forest Service will coordinate with the State of 

Wyoming in implementation planning to develop a 

statewide adaptive management plan, including 

mitigation where appropriate, and a framework to 

evaluate causal factors. The adaptive management 

plan will identify adaptive management triggers; 

indicators to be measured; and appropriate 

mitigation, restoration, and reclamation actions, 

including targets and benchmarks for responses. 

MA #25 will be converted to an Objective.
Draft EIS Appendix K 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment K-9 

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

The plan will include both short-term and long-term 

monitoring. The adaptive management plan will 

guide the development of project level adaptive 

management strategies.

#26

Sage-grouse core habitat areas would be managed 

as ROW avoidance areas for new ROW or SUA 

permits (Map 2-13). 

Easement and SUA Guideline.

Avoid allowing new easement or SUA in Greater 

Sage-Grouse core habitat.

#27

In addition to Alternative A:

Within general sage-grouse habitat:

Where new ROWs/SUAs are necessary in general 

sage-grouse habitat, new ROWs/

SUAs would be co-located within existing 

ROWs/SUAs where technically feasible.

Appropriate sage-grouse seasonal timing 

constraints would be applied.

RDF and see #6 Greater Sage-Grouse Seasonal 

Restrictions Standard.

#28

In addition to Alternative A:

New transmission projects would be allowed within 

the proposed 2-mile wide transmission line corridor 

(see Attachment D, Map 1 and 2 from WY EO 

2011-5) through sage-grouse core habitat 

population areas in south-central and southwestern 

Wyoming and within one half mile on either side of 

existing 115 kV or larger transmission lines,

creating a corridor no wider than 1 mile. 

Construction should occur between July 1 and 

March 14 (or between July 1 and November 30 in 

winter concentration areas). Projects in these 

corridors will not be counted against the 5% 

disturbance cap (Reference Manual).

New transmission projects proposed outside of 

these corridors would be considered where it can 

be demonstrated that declines in sage-grouse 

populations could be avoided through project 

design and/or mitigation. In conducting review of 

powerline transmission proposals, the use of the 

Framework for Sage-grouse Impacts Analysis for 

Interstate Transmission Lines or other appropriate 

documents is necessary. These transmission and 

distributions lines should be sited to minimize 

any potential impact on sage-grouse or their 

habitats, and must consider siting along or adjacent 

to existing long-term linear disturbance features 

whenever possible (i.e., along existing occupied 

above ground utilities, roads).

New projects within sage-grouse core habitats that 

may require future distribution and transmission 

lines would include the proposed distribution and 

transmission lines in their Density and Disturbance 

Calculation Tool (DDCT) as part of the proposed 

disturbance. Lines permitted but not located in a 

transmission corridor will be considered towards 

the 5% disturbance calculation (line disturbance is 

equal to ROW width multiplied by length and 

includes all access roads, staging areas, and other 

surface disturbance associated with construction 

outside of the ROW).

Transmission Easement and Authorization 

Standard:

New transmission projects proposed outside of the 

following areas must demonstrate that declines in 

sage-grouse populations would be avoided 

through project design and/or mitigation:

Within a 2-mile wide corridor in south-central and 

southwestern Wyoming (see Attachment D, Map 1 

and 2 from WY EO 2011-5).

Within 1⁄2 mile on either side of existing 115 kv or 

larger transmission lines creating a corridor no 

more than 1 mile wide.

RDF

In conducting review of powerline transmission 

proposals, the use of the Framework for Sagegrouse Impacts Analysis for Interstate 

Transmission Lines or other appropriate 

documents is necessary. These transmission and 

distributions lines should be sited to minimize 

any potential impact on sage-grouse or their 

habitats, and must consider siting along or 

adjacent to existing long-term linear disturbance 

features whenever possible (i.e., along existing 

occupied above ground utilities, roads).

See #6 Greater Sage-Grouse Seasonal 

Restrictions Standard.

RDF

New transmission projects in these corridors will 

not be counted against the 5% disturbance cap 

(Reference Manual): 

Within a 2-mile wide corridor in south-central and 

southwestern Wyoming (see Attachment D, Map 1 

and 2 from WY EO 2011-5) 

Within 1⁄2 mile on either side of existing 115 kv or 

larger transmission lines creating a corridor no 

more than 1 mile wide.

New projects in other locations within sage-grouse 

core habitats that may require future distribution 

and transmission lines would include the proposed 
Appendix K Draft EIS 

K-10 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

distribution and transmission lines in their 

DDCT as part of the proposed disturbance. Lines 

permitted but not located in a transmission 

corridor will be considered towards the 

5% disturbance calculation (line disturbance is 

equal to ROW width multiplied by length and 

includes all access roads, staging areas, and other 

surface disturbance associated with construction 

outside of the ROW).

#29 No similar action. No similar action.

#30

Maintenance/replacement of existing structures 

would be allowed subject to valid and existing 

rights. Upgrades would be considered, subject to

mandatory RDFs (Appendix B). Existing guy wires 

should be removed or appropriately marked with 

bird flight diverters to make them more visible to 

sage-grouse inflight. Structures that provide less 

suitable perching opportunities for raptors/corvids 

should be installed (e.g., perch deterrents or other 

anti-perching devices), or existing towers should be 

retrofitted with perch deterrents to limit sage-grouse 

predation.

RDF

#31

Where existing leases or ROWs or SUAs have had 

some level of development (e.g., road, fence, well) 

and are expired and no longer in use, the site 

would be reclaimed by removing these features and 

restoring the habitat. In areas where existing 

facilities cannot be removed, buried or modified 

perch deterrents would be required.

RDF

#32

Wind energy development would be prohibited in 

sage-grouse core habitat areas, unless it can be 

sufficiently demonstrated that the development 

activity would not result in declines of sage-grouse 

core habitat populations. Sufficient demonstration 

of “no declines” should be coordinated with the 

WGFD and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Areas 

that are currently unavailable due to the need to 

protect sensitive resources would remain 

unavailable to wind energy development.

Wind Energy Development Restriction Standard.

Do not allow wind energy development in Greater 

Sage-Grouse core habitat unless it can be 

sufficiently demonstrated that the development 

activity would not result in declines of Greater 

Sage-Grouse core habitat populations.

RDF

Sufficient demonstration of “no declines” of core 

habitat populations for wind energy development 

should be coordinated with the WGFD and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Continue Current Management.

Areas that are currently unavailable due to the 

need to protect sensitive resources would remain 

unavailable to wind energy development.

#33 No similar action. No similar action.

#34

In addition to the Alternative A: The use of guy 

wires for meteorological (MET) tower supports 

would be avoided within sage-grouse core habitat 

areas. All existing and any new unavoidable guy 

wires should be marked with recommended bird 

deterrent devices.

The siting of new temporary MET towers within 

sage-grouse core habitat areas would be avoided 

within two miles of active sage-grouse leks, unless 

they are out of the direct line of sight of the active 

RDF

The use of guy wires for MET tower supports 

would be avoided within sage-grouse core habitat 

areas. All existing and any new unavoidable guy 

wires should be marked with recommended bird 

deterrent devices.

MET Tower Restriction Guideline.

Avoid authorizing new MET towers within two 

miles of active sage-grouse leks, unless they are 
Draft EIS Appendix K 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment K-11

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

lek. out of the direct line-of-sight of the active lek.

#35 No similar action. No similar action.

#36

The BLM/Forest Service would retain public 

ownership of sage-grouse core habitat. Exceptions 

would be considered where there is mixed 

ownership and land exchanges would allow for 

additional or more contiguous federal ownership 

patterns within sage-grouse core habitat areas. For 

sage-grouse core habitat areas with minority 

federal ownership, an additional, effective 

mitigation agreement would be included for any 

disposal of federal land. As a final preservation 

measure, consideration should be given to pursuing 

permanent conservation easement.

Land Ownership Adjustment Standard (Combined 

MA#36 and #38).

Retain public ownership of core Greater SageGrouse habitat. Only allow Federal land sale or 

exchange when there is mixed ownership and land 

exchanges would allow for additional or more 

contiguous Federal ownership patterns within the 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat area. In these cases, 

require a mitigation agreement and a permanent 

conservation easement on the federal parcel that 

is sold or exchanged. Utilize sage-grouse habitat 

requirements to prioritize parcels for exchange or

acquisition. 

#37

Areas where acquisitions (including subsurface 

mineral rights) or conservation easements would 

benefit sage-grouse habitat would be identified.

MA #37 will be converted to an Objective.

#38

Sage-grouse habitat requirements would be utilized 

to prioritize parcels for exchange or acquisition 

within core habitat areas.

See #34. Land Ownership Adjustment Standard.

#39

Within core habitat, non-mineral withdrawals would 

be evaluated to determine if the withdrawal action 

is consistent with sage-grouse conservation.

MA #39 will be converted to an Objective.

#40 Continue Current Management. Continue Current Management. 

#41

The BLM/Forest Service would work cooperatively 

with permittees, leasees and other landowners to 

develop voluntary grazing management strategies 

that integrate both public and private lands into 

single management units to improve sage-grouse 

habitat.

RDF 

#42 Continue Current Management. Continue Current Management. 

#43 No similar action. No similar action.

#44

In Addition to Alternative A: Within sage-grouse 

core habitat, as appropriate, site specific sagegrouse habitat objectives and management 

considerations would be incorporated into all BLM 

and Forest Service grazing allotments through 

Allotment Management Plans (AMP), permit 

renewals, Forest Service Annual Operating 

Instructions, and/or equivalent planning processes.

MA #44 will be converted to an Objective.

#45

BLM and Forest Service policies and the equivalent 

Annual Operating Instructions would be used to 

evaluate land health standards progress towards or 

achievement in sage-grouse core habitats and, 

where not achieved, to determine if existing grazing 

management practices or levels of grazing use on 

public lands are significant factors in failing to meet, 

maintain or make progress towards achieving the 

standards and conform with the guidelines, which 

through this process will identify appropriate actions 

to address non-achievement and non-conformance.

MA #45 will be converted to an Objective
Appendix K Draft EIS 

K-12 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

#46 Continue Current Management. Continue Current Management.

#47 No similar action. No similar action.

#48

In addition to Alternative A: If periods of drought 

occur, where appropriate, the AO would evaluate 

strategies to address drought through coordination 

with grazing permittee/lessee and annual billings 

processes.

In cooperation with livestock grazing 

permittees/lessees, drought contingency plans 

would be developed at the appropriate landscape 

unit that provide for a consistent/appropriate 

BLM/Forest Service response. Plans should 

establish policy for addressing ongoing drought and 

post-drought recovery.

RDF

#49

In addition to Alternative A: In sage-grouse general 

and core habitat, existing range improvements 

(e.g., fences, watering facilities) would continue to 

be evaluated and modified when necessary. 

The potential risk to Greater Sage-Grouse and its 

habitats from existing structural range 

improvements would be evaluated. The potential 

for modification of those structural range 

improvements identified as posing a risk would be 

addressed. 

Supplements and supplemental feeding would 

continue to be authorized where appropriate.

MA #49 will be converted to an Objective

#50

In addition to Alternative A: Livestock trailing that is 

authorized would include terms and conditions 

designed to avoid sensitive areas and/or time 

periods for sage-grouse. The authorization would 

include specific routes and timeframes for trailing.

RDF

#51

In Addition to Alternative A: Grazing between 

riparian habitats and upland habitats would be 

balanced to promote the production and availability 

of beneficial forbs to Greater Sage-Grouse for use 

during nesting and brood-rearing. Grazing in 

meadows, mesic habitats, and riparian pastures 

would also be balanced to promote the production 

and availability of beneficial grasses and forbs for 

use during late brood-rearing within core habitat 

areas, while maintaining upland conditions and 

functions. 

RDF

#52

Range improvement projects would be planned and 

authorized on BLM and National Forest System

Lands in a way that contributes to rangeland health 

and maintains and/or improves Greater SageGrouse and its habitat. 

RDF

#53

Existing water developments associated with 

springs and seeps would be evaluated and 

associated pipelines/structures to those 

developments having a negative effect on sagegrouse core habitats would be modified.

MA #53 will be converted to an Objective

#54 Exceptions waivers and modifications to lease 

stipulations, Conditions of Approval (COA), and 

Continue current management.
Draft EIS Appendix K 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment K-13

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

Terms and Conditions (T&C), etc. for sage-grouse 

would continue to be considered on a case-by-case 

basis consistent with approved LUP and other 

BLM/Forest Service policy and regulations as they 

relate to exceptions within sage-grouse core and 

general habitat.

#55 No similar action. No similar action.

#56

In addition to Alternative A:

The agencies would allow oil and gas leasing 

consistent and subject to the leasing stipulations 

analyzed in the timing, distance, disturbance, and 

density restrictions sections (Map 2-8).

See timing, distance, disturbance, and density 

restrictions standards.

#57

A minimum lease size of 640 contiguous acres of 

federal mineral estate would be applied within 

sage-grouse core habitat areas.

Smaller parcels may be leased only when 640 

contiguous 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.

Fluid Mineral Estate Lease Size Standard 

Require a minimum lease size of 640 contiguous 

acres of federal mineral estate in Greater SageGrouse core habitat areas. Smaller parcels may 

be leased only when 640 contiguous 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.

#58

In addition to Alternative A (except for the BridgerTeton National Forest (BTNF): Geophysical 

exploration projects that are designed to minimize 

habitat fragmentation within sage-grouse core 

habitat would be allowed, except where prohibited 

or restricted by existing LUP decisions.

BTNF LRMP:

Seismic Activity Standard - Helicopter-access 

seismic activity would be permitted. Also: Seismic 

Activity Termination Guideline - Seismic activity 

should be seasonally restricted.

Geophysical Exploration Standard

Geophysical exploration projects must be 

designed to minimize Greater Sage-Grouse

habitat fragmentation.

#59

In addition to Alternative A: In cases where Federal 

oil and gas leases have been issued with 

stipulations varying from those in Appendix E for 

the protection of sage-grouse or their habitats being 

provided in the applicable LUP decision, as revised

or amended, their inclusion would be considered as 

permit COAs, when approving exploration and 

development activities through completion of the 

environmental record of review (43 CFR 3162.5), 

including appropriate documentation of compliance 

with the National Environmental Protection Act

(NEPA). 

Overall consideration shall be given to minimizing 

the impact to sage-grouse through a project design 

that avoids, minimizes, reduces, rectifies, and/or 

adequately compensates for direct and indirect 

impacts to sage- grouse core habitat or use and 

includes applicable and technical COAs (see this 

table’s Appendix). Selection and application of 

these measures shall be based on current science 

and research on the effects to important breeding, 

nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering areas. For 

RDF
Appendix K Draft EIS 

K-14 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

proposed operations in core habitat areas, the 

Surface Use Plan of Operations (SUPO) (see 

43CFR 3162.3-1(f)) shall address, at a minimum, 

the anticipated noise, density and amount of 

disturbance, mechanical movement (e.g., pump 

jacks), permanent and temporary facilities, traffic, 

phases of development over time, offsite mitigation, 

and expected periods of use associated with the 

proposed project. Seasonal habitats or project 

features related to potential sage-grouse impacts 

that are not addressed in the SUPO based on sitespecific or project-specific considerations shall be 

noted in the project file, along with a rationale for 

not including them.

In this process, the BLM/Forest Service would 

evaluate, among other things:

Whether the conservation measure is “reasonable” 

(43 CFR 3101.1-2) and consistent with valid 

existing rights;

Whether the action is in conformance with the 

approved LUP; and the effectiveness of the 

proposed mitigation measures.

The BLM/Forest Service would work with project 

proponents in these situations to promote 

measurable sage-grouse conservation objectives 

such as, but not limited to, consolidation of project 

related infrastructure to reduce habitat 

fragmentation and loss and to promote effective 

management objectives set by the State. 

The BLM/Forest Service would continue to work 

with project proponents (including those from within 

the BLM/Forest Service) and the Wyoming Game & 

Fish to site their projects in locations that meet the 

purpose and need for their project, but have been 

determined to contain the least sensitive habitats 

(based on vegetation, topography, or other habitat 

features) and resources whether inside or outside 

of core habitat areas. Valid existing rights will be 

recognized and respected. 

#60 Same as Alternative A Continue current management

#61 No similar action. No similar action.

#62

Master Development Plans would be considered 

and encouraged for projects involving multiple 

proposed disturbances within core habitat area.

RDF

#63

Within sage-grouse core habitat, unitization would 

be encouraged as a means of minimizing adverse 

impacts to sage-grouse to reduce fragmentation 

and surface disturbing and disruptive activities.

RDF

#64 Same as Alternative A. Continue Current Management.

#65

A reclamation bond would be required 

commensurate with the scope, scale, size of the 

project within sage-grouse core habitat. Partial 

bonding may be appropriate depending on these 

factors.

RDF
Draft EIS Appendix K 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment K-15

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

#66 Same as Alternative A. Continue Current Management.

#67

In addition to Alternative A: Where the federal 

government owns the mineral estate, and the 

surface is non-federal ownership, the BLM will work 

cooperatively with the surface owner to apply the 

same sage-grouse conservation measures as 

applied on public land on a voluntary basis, for core 

and non-core habitat respectively. 

No similar action. The Forest Service does not 

own sub-surface mineral estate under lands that 

are not National Forest System Lands.

#68

In addition to Alternative A: Where the federal 

government owns the surface, and the mineral 

estate is in non-federal ownership, work 

cooperatively with permittees, leasees and other 

surface landowners to negotiate and, apply the 

same sage-grouse conservation measures as 

applied on public land, for core and general habitat 

respectively. Apply appropriate design features to 

mitigate surface disturbance.

RDF

#69 No similar action. No similar action.

#70 No similar action. No similar action.

#71

In addition to Alternative A:

Coal – Surface Mining Methods—

Upon receipt of a coal lease application in sagegrouse core areas, 43 CFR 3461.5, Criterion 15 

would be applied and the area would be identified 

as suitable for further coal leasing consideration 

after consultation with the state and where 

applicable, surface management agency, to 

determine that all or certain stipulated methods of 

coal mining will not have a significant long-term 

impact on the sage-grouse. Special conditions 

could be required as identified during the leasing 

process to protect sage-grouse resources.

No similar action. The Forest Service does not 

determine suitability or unsuitability for coal 

leasing.

#72

In addition to Alternative A:

Coal – Underground Mining Methods

Upon receipt of a coal lease application proposing 

underground mining methods that include surface 

operations and impacts within sage-grouse core 

area, Criterion 15 would be applied and the area 

would be identified as suitable for further coal 

leasing consideration after consultation with the 

state and where applicable, surface management 

agency, to determine that all or certain stipulated 

methods of coal mining will not have a significant 

long-term impact on the sage-grouse. Stipulated 

methods may include (but not limited to) 

underground mining methods with no placement of 

surface facilities.

Unsuitability is not applied to underground 

operations without surface impacts (43 CFR 

3461.1) This would be consistent with what IM WY 

WY-2012-019 states; that the BLM/Forest Service

will assess potential impacts to sage-grouse 

through the NEPA process, and that the State 

regulatory agency would apply this mitigation, as 

well protective measures consistent with the State 

No similar action. The Forest Service does not 

determine suitability or unsuitability for coal 

leasing.
Appendix K Draft EIS 

K-16 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

Policy for solid leasable mining action at the 

permitting stage.

#73

Coal exploration activities could be allowed in sagegrouse core habitats, if they can be completed in 

compliance to surface occupancy, and disturbance 

and density stipulations analyzed through the 

DDCT process.

See surface occupancy, disturbance and density 

standards, and guidelines.

#74

In addition to Alternative A:

Exploration licenses and prospecting permits would 

be considered with appropriate mitigating 

measures.

All non-energy leasable mineral activities would be 

considered in sage-grouse core habitats, provided 

that the activities can be completed in compliance 

to surface occupancy, and disturbance and density 

stipulations analyzed through the DDCT process.

See density and disturbance standards and 

guidelines. 

#75

The withdrawal of sage-grouse cord habitat areas 

from mineral entry would be considered for 

recommendation based on risk to sage-grouse and 

its habitat in core habitat areas from conflicting 

locatable mineral potential and development.

Operators may be requested to submit 

modifications to the accepted notice or approved 

plan of operations so that the operations minimally 

impact sage-grouse core area habitats. The AO 

may convey to the operator suggested 

conservation measures, based upon the notice or 

plan level operations and the geographic area of 

those operations [also called the project area which 

is defined in CFR 3809.5]. 

These suggested conservation measures include 

measures that support the overall goals and 

objectives of the core population area strategy, 

though measures listed for protection of sagegrouse breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and 

wintering may not be reasonable or applicable to 

the BLM/Forest Service’s determination of whether 

the proposed operations will cause unnecessary or 

undue degradation under 43 CFR 3809.5. The 

request containing the suggested conservation 

measures must make clear that the operator’s 

compliance is not mandatory. 

Notices or Plans of Operation, or modifications 

thereto, submitted following the issuance of this 

guidance: As part of the 15-day completeness 

review of notices [or modifications thereto] and 30-

day completeness review of plans of operations [or 

modifications thereto], the proposed project area(s) 

where exploration, development, mining, access 

and reclamation would take place should be 

reviewed for overlap of sage-grouse core areas in 

the corporate GIS database. If there is overlap, the 

BLM/Forest Service AO may notify the operator of 

ways that they may minimize impacts to core area 

habitats and request the operator to amend its 

notice or plan to include such measures. The 

request to amend the submitted notice or plan of 

The following portion of the text from MA #75 will 

be converted to an Objective.

The withdrawal of sage-grouse core habitat areas 

from mineral entry would be considered for 

recommendation based on risk to sage-grouse 

and its habitat in core habitat areas from 

conflicting locatable mineral potential and 

development.

RDF

Operators may be requested to submit 

modifications to the accepted notice or approved 

plan of operations so that the operations minimally 

impact sage-grouse core area habitats. The AO 

may convey to the operator suggested 

conservation measures, based upon the notice or 

plan level operations and the geographic area of 

those operations [also called the project area 

which is defined in CFR 3809.5]. 

These suggested conservation measures include 

measures that support the overall goals and 

objectives of the core population area strategy, 

though measures listed for protection of sagegrouse breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and 

wintering may not be reasonable or applicable to 

the BLM/Forest Service’s determination of whether 

the proposed operations will cause unnecessary 

or undue degradation under 43 CFR 3809.5. The 

request containing the suggested conservation 

measures must make clear that the operator’s 

compliance is not mandatory. 

Notices or Plans of Operation, or modifications 

thereto, submitted following the issuance of this 

guidance: As part of the 15-day completeness 

review of notices [or modifications thereto] and 30-

day completeness review of plans of operations 

[or modifications thereto], the proposed project 

area(s) where exploration, development, mining, 

access and reclamation would take place should 

be reviewed for overlap of sage-grouse core areas 

in the corporate GIS database. If there is overlap, 
Draft EIS Appendix K 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment K-17

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

operations must make clear that the operator’s 

compliance is not mandatory and that including 

such measures is not a requirement for 

completeness of either the notice or a plan of 

operations, nor is it a condition of acceptance of the 

notice or approval of the plan of operations.

the BLM/Forest Service AO may notify the 

operator of ways that they may minimize impacts 

to core area habitats and request the operator to 

amend its notice or plan to include such 

measures. The request to amend the submitted 

notice or plan of operations must make clear that 

the operator’s compliance is not mandatory and 

that including such measures is not a requirement 

for completeness of either the notice or a plan of 

operations, nor is it a condition of acceptance of 

the notice or approval of the plan of operations.

#76

In addition to Alternative A: All salable mineral 

activities within core habitat areas would be 

considered, provided they can be completed in 

compliance within surface occupancy, seasonal 

restrictions, and disturbance and density 

stipulations analyzed through the DDCT process.

See density and disturbance standards and 

guidelines. 

#77

Restoration of saleable mineral pits no longer in 

use would be considered to meet sage-grouse 

habitat conservation objectives. Emphasis would be 

given to reclamation/restoration of sage-grouse 

core habitat as a viable long term goal to improve 

the sage-grouse habitat.

MA #77 will be converted to an Objective.

#78

In addition to Alternative A: BLM Special 

Recreation Permits (SRP) and Forest Service

Recreation Special Use Authorizations (RSUA) 

would be allowed in core habitat unless negative 

impacts to sage-grouse cannot be adequately 

mitigated.

Recreation Special Use Authorizations Standard

Do not allow RSUA in Greater Sage-Grouse core 

habitat areas unless negative impacts can be 

adequately mitigated.

#79 No similar action. No similar action.

#80

Do not designate new sage-grouse conservation 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern/ Special 

Interest Areas (ACEC/SIA).

Does not apply to National Forest System Lands. 

#81 No similar action. No similar action. 

#82

The Casper Field Office Poison Spider Off-Highway 

Vehicle (OHV) Park (285 acres) would remain as 

an “open” OHV area.

The non-sand dune portions of the following OHV 

“open” areas within sage-grouse core habitat areas 

would be limited to existing roads and trails:

Rawlins Field Office: Dune Pond Cooperative 

Management Area (3,736 acres)

Rock Springs Field Office: Portion of the Greater 

Sand Dunes Recreation Area (529 acres).

Does not apply to National Forest System Lands. 

#83 Same as Alternative A. Continue Current Management.

#84

New primary and secondary (BLM route category) 

or Route Category level 4 and 5 (Forest Service) 

roads would be avoided within 1.9 miles of the 

perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks within 

sage-grouse core habitat areas. Other new roads 

would be avoided within 0.6 miles of the perimeter 

of occupied sage-grouse leks within core habitat 

areas.

New Road Construction Standard 

Avoid authorizing construction of new primary and 

secondary roads (Levels 4 and 5 roads) within 1.9 

miles of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse 

leks within sage-grouse core habitat areas. Avoid 

authorizing construction of other new roads within 

0.6 miles of the perimeter of occupied sagegrouse leks within core habitat areas.
Appendix K Draft EIS 

K-18 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

#85

Within sage-grouse core habitat, no upgrading of 

existing routes that would change route category 

(BLM route category: road, primitive road, or trail; 

Forest Service route category: level 1, level 2, or 

level 3) or capacity would be allowed unless the 

upgrading would have minimal impact on sagegrouse in sage-grouse core habitat, was necessary 

for motorist safety, or eliminated the need to 

construct a new road.

Road Reconstruction Standard.

Do not allow upgrading of existing routes that 

would change the route category or capacity 

unless the upgrading would have minimal impact 

on sage-grouse in sage-grouse core habitat, is 

necessary for motorist safety, or eliminates the 

need to construct a new road. 

#86

In sage-grouse core habitat, existing roads or 

realignments would be used to access valid 

existing rights that are not yet developed. If valid 

existing rights cannot be accessed via existing 

roads, any new road would be constructed to the 

absolute minimum standard necessary, and the 

surface disturbance would be added to the total 

disturbance in the sage-grouse core habitat area. If 

that disturbance exceeds 5% for that area, 

additional, effective mitigation necessary would be 

evaluated and implemented to offset the resulting 

loss of sage-grouse habitat.

RDF

Also, see Disturbance Standard. 

#87

Kemmerer RMP: Roads and two-track routes 

determined to be unauthorized or redundant and 

unnecessary for resource management purposes 

would be reclaimed to achieve surrounding native 

conditions.

For roads, primitive roads and trails not designated 

in travel management plans within sage-grouse 

core habitat areas, natural reclamation of roads and 

trails would be allowed in appropriate situations 

where additional resource damage is not 

foreseeable. This would include primitive 

route/roads that were not designated in Wilderness 

Study Areas and within lands with wilderness 

characteristics that have been selected to be 

managed to retain those characteristics for 

protection.

RDF

#88

Within sage-grouse core habitats, when reseeding 

roads and trails, appropriate seed mixtures would 

be used and the use of transplanted sagebrush 

would be considered.

RDF

#89

Within sage-grouse core and general habitat, the 

BLM/Forest Service would manage for vegetation 

composition and structure that reflects ESDs or 

other methods that reference site potential or 

comparable standard to achieve sage-grouse and 

other resource objectives.

RDF

#90

Within sage-grouse core habitat in northeast 

Wyoming, vegetation treatments in nesting and 

wintering that would reduce sagebrush canopy to 

less than 15% would not be conducted unless it 

can be shown to be beneficial to sage-grouse 

habitat.

Northeast Wyoming Vegetation Treatment 

Restriction Standard.

Do not conduct vegetation treatments within sagegrouse core habitat in northeast Wyoming in 

nesting and wintering that would reduce 

sagebrush canopy to less than 15% unless it can 

be shown to be beneficial to sage-grouse habitat.

#91 In addition to Alternative A: For vegetation 

treatments in sagebrush within core habitat areas, 

RDF Also, see density and disturbance standards 

and guidelines. 
Draft EIS Appendix K 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment K-19

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

refer to Appendix A, WGFD Protocols for Treating 

Sagebrush to Benefit Sage-Grouse (WGFD 2011, 

as updated) and the BLM’s Washington Office 

Instruction Memorandum 2011-138 (Sage-grouse 

Conservation Related to Wildland Fire and Fuels 

Management).

These recommended protocols will be used in 

determining whether proposed treatment 

constitutes a “disturbance” that would contribute 

toward the 5% threshold within sage-grouse core 

habitat maintenance. Additionally, these protocols 

would be used to determine whether the proposed 

treatment configuration would be expected to have 

neutral or beneficial impacts for core populations or 

if they represent additional habitat loss or 

fragmentation. Treatments to enhance 

sagebrush/grasslands habitat for sage-grouse 

would be evaluated based upon habitat quality and 

the functionality/use of treated habitats posttreatment. 

The BLM and the Forest Service would work 

collaboratively with partners at the state and local 

level to maintain and enhance sage-grouse 

habitats.

#92

For vegetation treatments in sagebrush within core 

habitat areas, refer to Attachment 6 – WGFD 

Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit Sagegrouse (WGFD 2011, as updated). These 

recommended protocols, subject to seasonal 

conditions of approval, would be used in 

determining whether proposed treatment 

constitutes a “disturbance” that would contribute 

toward the 5% threshold for habitat maintenance. 

Additionally, these protocols would be used to 

determine whether the proposed treatment 

configuration would be expected to have neutral or 

beneficial impacts for core populations or if they 

represent additional habitat loss or fragmentation. 

Treatments to enhance sagebrush/grasslands 

habitat for sage-grouse would be evaluated based 

upon habitat quality and the functionality/use of 

treated habitats post-treatment. 

The BLM and Forest Service would work 

collaboratively with partners at the state and local 

level to maintain and enhance sage-grouse 

habitats. 

MA #92 is a duplicate of MA #91.

#93

Grazing would be deferred on treated areas for two 

full growing seasons unless vegetation objectives 

or vegetation recovery indicates a shorter or longer 

rest period is necessary based on vegetation 

monitoring results.

RDF

#94

For vegetation treatments in sagebrush within core 

habitat areas, refer to Attachment 6 – WGFD 

Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit Sagegrouse (WGFD 2011, as updated).

RDF

#95 Reclamation of surface disturbances in sage- RDF
Appendix K Draft EIS 

K-20 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

grouse core habitats would be consistent with the 

Wyoming Reclamation Policy (USDI BLM 2009b) 

and Appendix C or Forest Service Reclamation 

policy.

A monitoring plan would be developed for each 

restoration or reclamation project and reporting 

progress and changes in resource condition.

#96

Areas for vegetation restoration and/or restoration 

criteria that include state sage-grouse conservation 

plans and appropriate local information would be 

identified. The use of native plants and seeds for 

restoration would be required unless the probability 

for success is low (non-native plants and seeds 

may be used as long as they meet sage-grouse 

habitat objectives), and restoration management 

would be designed to obtain long-term persistence 

based on ESD. 

Reestablishment of sagebrush cover and desirable 

understory plants would be the highest priority for 

restoration efforts.

Landscape patterns that most benefit sage-grouse 

would be restored and created, considering 

potential changes in climate.

RDF

#97

Within sage-grouse core habitat, implementation of 

restoration projects would be prioritized based on 

environmental variables that improve chances for 

project success in areas most likely to benefit sagegrouse.

Restoration would be prioritized in seasonal 

habitats that are thought to be limiting sage-grouse 

distribution and/or abundance.

RDF

#98

In addition to Alternative A: Where probability of 

success or native seed availability is low or where 

there is a specific identified purpose that cannot be 

met with natives, non-native seeds could be used 

provided they meet sage-grouse habitat 

conservation objectives.

RDF

#99

Post Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation 

(ES&R) and BAER management would be 

designed to ensure long term persistence of 

seeded or pre-burn native plants. This may require 

temporary or long-term changes in livestock 

grazing, wild horse and burro, and travel 

management, etc., to achieve and maintain the 

desired condition of ES&R and BAER projects to 

benefit sage-grouse (Eiswerth and Shonkwiler

2006).

RDF

#100

The role of existing seedings that are currently 

composed of primarily introduced perennial grasses 

in and adjacent to core sage-grouse habitats would 

be evaluated to determine if they should be 

restored to sagebrush or habitat of higher quality 

for sage-grouse. If these seedings are part of an 

AMP/ Conservation Plan or if they provide value in 

conserving or enhancing the rest of the core 

MA #100 will be converted to an Objective.
Draft EIS Appendix K 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment K-21

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

habitats, no restoration would be necessary.

The compatibility of these seedings for sage-grouse 

habitat or as a component of a grazing system 

would be assessed during the land health 

assessments (or other analyses [Forest Service

only]) (Davies et al. 2011).

#101

Priority would be given for implementing specific 

sage-grouse habitat restoration projects in areas 

invaded by annual grasses first to sites that are 

adjacent to or surrounded by sage-grouse priority 

habitats. Areas invaded by annual grasses would 

be second priority for restoration when the sites are 

not adjacent to priority habitat, but are within 2 

miles of priority habitat. The third priority for areas 

invaded by annual grasses habitat restoration 

projects would be sites beyond 2 miles of priority 

habitat. The intent would be to focus restoration 

outward from existing, intact habitat.

RDF

#102

In fire prone areas where sagebrush seed is 

required for sage-grouse habitat restoration, the 

BLM/Forest Service would consider establishing 

seed harvest areas that are managed for seed 

production and are a priority for protection from 

outside disturbances.

RDF

#103

Vegetation treatment proposals must include 

evaluation of soils, precipitation, invasive/exotic 

plants, as well as the current condition of sagegrouse core habitats.

RDF

#104

The BLM/Forest Service could implement 

treatments within sage-grouse core habitat areas 

where outbreaks of grasshopper or Mormon cricket 

populations are expected to rise above economic 

levels. Treatments must be conducted only 

following reduced agent-area treatments (RAATS) 

protocols. The BLM/Forest Service would work 

collaboratively with partners at the federal, state, 

and local levels, including the Wyoming Weed and 

Pest Districts within the counties where the 

treatment is to occur, to maintain and enhance 

sage-grouse habitats in a manner consistent with 

the core population area strategy for conservation.

The BLM/Forest Service would be directed to utilize 

the Wyoming Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket 

Control website as a resource for updated

information when conducting analysis of 

grasshopper and Mormon cricket control in sagegrouse habitats.

Continue Current Management.

#105

Within sage-grouse core habitat, the BLM/Forest 

Service would review and consider amending BLM 

Herd Management Area Plans (HMAP) to 

incorporate sage-grouse habitat objectives and 

management considerations for all BLM herd 

management areas (HMA).

There are no wild horses on National Forest 

System Lands in the planning area studied in this 

analysis.

#106

Sage-grouse core habitat management objectives 

would be considered when evaluating appropriate 

management levels (AML).

There are no wild horses on National Forest 

System Lands in the planning area studied in this 

analysis.
Appendix K Draft EIS 

K-22 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

#107

Sage-grouse core habitat management objectives 

would be considered when conducting land health 

assessments in BLM HMAs.

There are no wild horses on National Forest 

System Lands in the planning area studied in this 

analysis.

#108

When conducting NEPA analysis for wild horse and 

burro management activities, water developments 

or other rangeland improvements for wild horses in 

sage-grouse core habitat, the direct and indirect 

effects to sage-grouse populations and habitat 

would be addressed. Water developments or 

rangeland improvements would be implemented 

using the criteria identified for domestic livestock 

identified above in core habitats.

There are no wild horses on National Forest 

System Lands in the planning area studied in this 

analysis.

#109

Coordinate with other resources (Range, Wildlife, 

and Riparian) to conduct land health assessments 

within all BLM HMAs.

There are no wild horses on National Forest 

System Lands in the planning area studied in this 

analysis.

#110

In sage-grouse core habitat, fuel treatments would 

be designed and implemented with an emphasis on 

protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems and 

enhancing and protecting future sagebrush 

ecosystems (refer to WGFD Protocols for Treating 

Sagebrush to Benefit Sage-grouse [WGFD 2011, 

as updated]) and Appendix A.

These recommended protocols would be used in 

determining whether proposed treatment 

constitutes a “disturbance” that will contribute 

toward the 5% threshold for habitat maintenance. 

RDF

#111

In addition to Alternative A: Burned areas that are 

within core sage-grouse habitats would be restored.

Following 2011 wildfires (and following 1994 

wildfires in Northeast Wyoming), areas containing 

less than 5% canopy cover would be treated as 

disturbed pending an implementation management 

plan with trend data showing the area returning to 

functional sage-grouse habitat. This would be 

specific only to wildfire situations. This direction 

would not be intended for other incentive/mitigation 

situations.

The BLM/Forest Service could bring in BAER and 

BAR teams who would work collaboratively with 

partners at the federal, state, and local level to 

maintain and enhance sage-grouse habitats in a 

manner consistent with the priority habitat 

population area strategy for conservation. DDCT 

reviews would be conducted in coordination with 

the WGFD Habitat Protection Program located in 

Cheyenne at the WGFD headquarters. Areas within 

sage-grouse priority habitat would be high priority 

for restoration of sage-grouse habitat beyond 

immediate response.

RDF

Restore burned areas that are within core sagegrouse habitats.

Also, see the Disturbance Standard for direction 

concerning areas with less than 5% canopy cover.

Continue current management concerning fire 

restoration teams.

#112

In addition to Alternative A: For fuels management, 

the agencies would consider multiple tools for fuels 

reduction and would analyze in NEPA compliance 

documentation before electing to implement 

prescribed fire in sage-grouse core habitat areas. 

The use of prescribed fire would be avoided in 

areas of Wyoming big sagebrush, other xeric 

RDF
Draft EIS Appendix K 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment K-23

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

sagebrush species, where cheatgrass or other fireinvasive species occur, and/or within areas of less 

than 12–inch precipitation zones. 

Refer to Appendix A, WGFD Protocols for Treating 

Sagebrush to Benefit Sage-grouse (WGFD 2011, 

as updated) and the BLM’s Washington Office 

Instruction Memorandum 2011-138 (Sage-grouse 

Conservation Related to Wildland Fire and Fuels 

Management). If prescribed fire activities are not in 

compliance with these protocols, the treatment 

would be considered a sage-grouse core habitat 

disturbance.

#113

Within sage-grouse core habitat, post fuels 

management projects would be designed to ensure 

long-term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment 

native plants (while controlling for erosion and 

treating infestation of invasive plant species), to 

return to suitable sage-grouse habitat.

RDF

#114 Same as Alternative A. Continue Current Management.

#115 Same as Alternative A. Continue Current Management.

#116 No similar action. No similar action. 

#117 No similar action. No similar action. 

#118 No similar action. No similar action. 

#119 No similar action. No similar action. 

#120

In Addition to Alternative A: In sage-grouse core 

habitat areas, suppression would be prioritized 

immediately after firefighter and public safety to 

conserve the habitat.

General sage-grouse habitat would be assigned a 

priority commensurate with its importance in the 

local fire plan.

RDF

#121

The BLM/Forest Service, in coordination with the 

State of Wyoming and its agencies, other local 

partners and stakeholders, would establish 

monitoring protocols for sage-grouse populations 

and habitat that would be incorporated into 

individual project approvals, including small and inhouse projects, as appropriate and necessary.

MA #121 will be converted to an Objective.

#122

Inside sage-grouse core habitat areas, the 

BLM/Forest Service would limit the density of oil 

and gas or mining activities to no more than an 

average of 1 location per 640 acres, subject to valid 

existing rights; and would limit all surface 

disturbance (any program area) to no more than 

5% of the core landscape using the DDCT process 

described in Appendix I.

Oil and Gas or Mining Activity Density Guideline.

Limit or reduce the density of oil and gas or mining 

activities to no more than an average of 1 location 

per 640 acres in Greater Sage-Grouse core 

habitat areas. 

Surface Disturbance Guideline.

Limit all surface disturbances (any program area) 

to no more than 5% of the Greater Sage-Grouse

core landscape and connectivity areas using the 

DDCT process described in Appendix I. 

For vegetation treatments in sagebrush within core 

habitat areas, refer to Appendix A WGFD 

Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit Sagegrouse (WGFD 2011, as updated). Consider these 
Appendix K Draft EIS 

K-24 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

protocols in determining whether or not the 

proposed treatment constitutes a “disturbance” 

that would contribute toward the 5% threshold.

Utility Transmission projects in the 2-mile wide 

corridor in south-central and southwestern 

Wyoming will not be counted against the 5% 

disturbance cap (Reference Manual). (See

(Attachment D, Map 1 and 2 from WY EO 2011-5)

(note – remove this if the corridor does not pass 

through National Forest System Lands). New 

projects within sage-grouse core habitats that may 

require future distribution and transmission lines 

would include the proposed distribution and 

transmission lines in their DDCT as part of the 

proposed disturbance. Lines permitted but not 

located in a transmission corridor will be 

considered towards the 5% disturbance 

calculation (line disturbance is equal to ROW 

width multiplied by length and includes all access 

roads, staging areas, and other surface 

disturbance associated with construction outside 

of the ROW).

Easement and SUA within existing corridors would 

not be counted against the 5% disturbance cap.

For fuels treatments, use Appendix A WGFD 

Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit Sagegrouse (WGFD 2011, as updated) and Appendix A

to determine whether or not proposed treatment 

constitutes a “disturbance” that will contribute 

toward the 5% threshold for habitat maintenance. 

Following 2011 wildfires (and following 1994 

wildfires in Northeast Wyoming) burned areas 

containing less than 5% canopy cover, shall be 

treated as disturbed pending an implementation 

management plan with trend data showing the 

area returning to functional sage-grouse habitat.

This is specific only to wildfire situations and is not 

intended for other incentive/mitigation situations.

Refer to Appendix A WGFD Protocols for Treating 

Sagebrush to Benefit Sage-grouse (WGFD 2011, 

as updated) and the BLM’s Washington Office 

Instruction Memorandum 2011-138 (Sage-grouse 

Conservation Related to Wildland Fire and Fuels 

Management). If prescribed fire activities are not in 

compliance with these protocols, the treatment is 

considered a sage-grouse core habitat 

disturbance.

#123

Inside sage-grouse connectivity areas, all surface 

disturbances (any program area) would be limited 

to no more than 5% per 640 acres using the DDCT 

process described in Appendix I.

Combined with MA #122.

#124

In addition to Alternative A: Within sage-grouse 

core habitat when mitigation is required, the 

agencies in coordination with the State of Wyoming 

and its agencies and partners, would use the 

following mitigation hierarchy:

In-kind and onsite (on lease) mitigation would be

RDF
Draft EIS Appendix K 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment K-25

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

first priority.

In-kind mitigation offsite within the projects DDCT 

would be second priority.

In-kind mitigation offsite within the core area 

boundary would be third priority.

In-kind mitigation adjacent to the affected core area 

within general sage-grouse habitat would be fourth 

priority. 

When additional offsite mitigation is necessary, it 

would be conducted within the same population 

area where the impact occurs; and if that is not 

possible, mitigation would be conducted within the 

same Management Zone per the 2006 Western 

Association of Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Strategy 

as the impact.

#125

Sage-grouse leks inside core and connectivity 

habitat areas:

Surface occupancy and surface disturbing activities 

would be prohibited on or within a six tenths (0.6) 

mile radius of the perimeter of occupied sagegrouse leks (Map 2-3). 

Surface Occupancy and Surface Disturbance 

Standard.

Prohibit surface occupancy and surface disturbing 

activities within a six tenths (0.6) mile radius of the 

perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks inside 

Greater Sage-Grouse core and connectivity 

habitat areas and within a one-quarter (0.25) mile 

radius of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse 

leks in Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat 

areas. (Map 2-3).

#126

Sage-grouse leks outside core habitat and 

connectivity habitat areas: 

Surface occupancy and surface disturbing activities 

would be prohibited or restricted on or within a one 

quarter (0.25) mile radius of the perimeter of 

occupied sage-grouse leks (Map 2-3). 

Combined with #125. 

#127

Sage-grouse nesting/early brood-rearing habitat 

inside core habitat areas: 

Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would 

be prohibited from March 1–June 30 to protect 

sage-grouse breeding, nesting and early brood 

rearing habitat. This timing limitation would be 

applied throughout the sage-grouse core area 

habitats. Activities in unsuitable habitats would be 

evaluated under the exception, waiver, and 

modification criteria and could be allowed on a case 

by case basis.

Where credible data support different timeframes 

for this seasonal restriction, dates could be 

expanded by up to 14 days prior to or subsequent 

to the above dates.

Surface Disturbing and/or Disruptive Activity 

Standard.

To protect Greater Sage-Grouse breeding, 

nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat, prohibit 

surface disturbing and/or disruptive activity from 

March 1 – June 30 in the following locations: in all 

Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat areas, within 4 

miles of an occupied lek or lek perimeter within 

Greater Sage-Grouse connectivity areas, and 

within two miles of an occupied lek or lek 

perimeter in Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat.

Activities in unsuitable habitats may be authorized 

under the exception, waiver, and modification 

criteria. Where credible data support different 

timeframes for this restriction, dates may be 

expanded by up to 14 days prior to or subsequent 

to the listed restricted timeframe. 

Prohibit utility transmission project construction 

between March 15 and June 30 (or December 1 

and June 30 in winter concentration areas).

#128

Sage-grouse nesting/early brood-rearing habitat 

inside connectivity areas: 

Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would 

be prohibited within connectivity habitat from March 

Combined with #127.
Appendix K Draft EIS 

K-26 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

1–June 30 to protect breeding, nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitats within 4 miles of the lek or 

lek perimeter of any occupied sage-grouse lek 

within identified connectivity areas. This timing 

limitation would be applied throughout the sagegrouse core area habitats. Activities in unsuitable 

habitats would be evaluated under the exception, 

waiver, and modification criteria and may be 

allowed on a case-by-case basis.

Where credible data support different timeframes 

for this seasonal restriction, dates could be 

expanded by 14 days prior or subsequent to the 

above dates. 

#129

Sage-grouse nesting/early brood-rearing habitat 

outside sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat 

areas: 

Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would 

be prohibited from March 15–June 30 to protect 

sage-grouse nesting and early brood rearing 

habitats within 2 miles of the lek or lek perimeter of 

any occupied lek located outside core or 

connectivity areas. 

Where credible data support different timeframes 

for this restriction, dates could be expanded by 14 

days prior or subsequent to the above dates. 

Combined with #127.

#130

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 to protect 

core area populations of sage-grouse that use 

these winter concentration habitats. This timing 

limitation would be applied throughout the sagegrouse core area habitats.

Activities in unsuitable habitats within core habitat 

areas would be evaluated under the exception, 

waiver, and modification criteria and could be 

allowed on a case-by-case basis. 

Protection of additional areas of winter 

concentration that are not located within the current 

core area boundaries would be implemented where 

WCAs are identified as supporting populations of 

sage-grouse that attend leks within core habitat.

Appropriate seasonal timing restrictions and habitat 

protection measures would be considered and 

evaluated in all identified winter concentration 

areas.

Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Concentration Area 

Protection Standard

Prohibit surface disturbing and/or disruptive 

activities in Greater Sage-Grouse Winter 

Concentration Areas from December 1–March 14 

to protect core area populations of sage-grouse 

that use these winter concentration habitats. This 

timing limitation will be applied throughout the 

sage-grouse core area habitats and in other 

locations where WCAs are identified as supporting 

populations of Greater Sage-Grouse that attend 

leks within Greater Sage-Grouse core area 

habitat.

Activities in unsuitable habitats within core habitat 

areas may be evaluated under the exception, 

waiver, and modification criteria and may be 

allowed on a case by case basis. 

The following text from MA #130 will be converted 

to an Objective. Appropriate seasonal timing 

restrictions and habitat protection measures must 

be considered and evaluated in all WCA habitats 

identified (independent of habitat suitability).

#131

In addition to Alternative A: The BLM/Forest 

Service would implement strategies and techniques 

in land management decisions that address 

predators shown to pose a threat to sage-grouse 

(Appendix F).

The BLM/Forest Service would support and 

encourage other agencies in their efforts to 

minimize impacts from predators on sage-grouse 

where needs have been documented.

RDF

Implement strategies and techniques (Appendix F) 

in land management decisions that address 

predators shown to pose a threat to sage-grouse. 

Support and encourage other agencies in their 

efforts to minimize impacts from predators on 

sage-grouse where needs have been 

documented.
Draft EIS Appendix K 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment K-27

MA # BLM RMP Forest Service LRMP

#132

The BLM/Forest Service would work with 

proponents to limit project related noise where it 

would be expected to reduce functionality of 

habitats that support core habitat area populations.

The BLM/Forest Service would evaluate the 

potential for limitation of new noise sources on a 

case-by-case basis as appropriate.

The BLM/Forest Service’s near-term goal would be 

to limit noise sources that would be expected to 

negatively impact core habitat area sage-grouse 

populations and to continue to support the 

establishment of ambient baseline noise levels for 

occupied core habitat area leks. 

As additional research and information emerges, 

specific new limitations appropriate to the type of 

projects being considered would be evaluated and 

appropriate limitations would be implemented 

where necessary to minimize potential for noise 

impacts on sage-grouse core population behavioral 

cycles. 

As new research is completed, new specific 

limitations would be coordinated with the WGFD 

and partners.

Noise levels at the 0.6 mile perimeter of the lek 

should not exceed 10 dBA above ambient noise 

from March 1 through May 15.

Noise Limit Guideline.

To minimize the potential for noise impacts on 

Greater Sage-Grouse core population behavioral 

cycles, noise levels at the 0.6 mile perimeter of the 

lek should not exceed 10 dBA above ambient 

noise from March 1 through May 15.

RDF

Work with proponents to limit project related noise 

where it would be expected to reduce functionality 

of habitats that support core habitat area 

populations. 

Evaluate the potential for limitation of new noise 

sources on a case-by-case basis as appropriate. 

Limit noise sources that would be expected to 

negatively impact core habitat area sage-grouse 

populations and to continue to support the 

establishment of ambient baseline noise levels for 

occupied core habitat area leks. 

As additional research and information emerges, 

evaluate specific new limitations appropriate to the 

type of projects being considered and implement 

appropriate limitations where necessary to 

minimize potential for noise impacts on sagegrouse core population behavioral cycles. As new 

research is completed, coordinate new specific 

limitations with the WGFD and partners.