Mission Statement 

It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, 

diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of 

present and future generations. 
Final Scoping Report 

for the 

Wyoming Sage-Grouse Resource 

Management Plan Amendments 

for 

Public Lands Administered 

by the 

Bureau of Land Management 

Wyoming State Office 

January 2011

 
This page intentionally left blank 
Scoping Report Table of Contents 

Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 1

PLAN OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

PUBLIC SCOPING AND ISSUE IDENTIFICATION ........................................................................................................... 2

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 5

PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS ...................................................................................................................................... 5

Meeting Logistics and Attendance ....................................................................................................................... 5

Number and Type of Comments Received .......................................................................................................... 6

Summary of Meeting Comments ......................................................................................................................... 6

Fish and Wildlife............................................................................................................................................................... 6

General (Process/Policy) ................................................................................................................................................... 7

Livestock Grazing ............................................................................................................................................................. 7

Minerals and Energy ......................................................................................................................................................... 7

Recreation ......................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Special Status Species ....................................................................................................................................................... 7

WRITTEN SCOPING COMMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 7

Method of Submittal ............................................................................................................................................ 7

Number and Type of Comments Received .......................................................................................................... 8

Summary of Written Comments........................................................................................................................... 9

Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9

Fish and Wildlife............................................................................................................................................................... 9

General (Process/Policy) ................................................................................................................................................... 9

Lands and Realty............................................................................................................................................................. 10

Livestock Grazing ........................................................................................................................................................... 10

Minerals and Energy ....................................................................................................................................................... 10

Socioeconomic ................................................................................................................................................................ 10

Special Designations ....................................................................................................................................................... 10

Special Status Species ..................................................................................................................................................... 11

Travel and Access Management ..................................................................................................................................... 11

Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Wildland Fire Management............................................................................................................................................. 11

CHAPTER 3 ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING SCOPING ........................................................................................ 13

Air Quality ......................................................................................................................................................... 13

Fish and Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................ 13

General (Process/Policy) .................................................................................................................................... 13

Lands and Realty ................................................................................................................................................ 17

Livestock Grazing .............................................................................................................................................. 17

Minerals and Energy .......................................................................................................................................... 18

Recreation .......................................................................................................................................................... 19

Socioeconomic ................................................................................................................................................... 19

Special Management Area Designations ............................................................................................................ 20

Special Status Species ........................................................................................................................................ 20

Travel and Access Management ........................................................................................................................ 24

Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................................... 25

Wildland Fire Management ................................................................................................................................ 25

CHAPTER 4 ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE RMP AMENDMENTS/EIS ............................................. 27

JUSTIFICATION 1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 27

General (Process/Policy) .................................................................................................................................... 27

Livestock Grazing .............................................................................................................................................. 27

JUSTIFICATION 2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 27

Livestock Grazing .............................................................................................................................................. 27

CHAPTER 5 DRAFT PLANNING CRITERIA ......................................................................................................... 29
Table of Contents Scoping Report 

ii Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 

CHAPTER 6 DATA SUMMARY/DATA GAPS ....................................................................................................... 31

CHAPTER 7 WYOMING SAGE-GROUSE RMP AMENDMENTS/EIS PLANNING SCHEDULE ...................... 37

 LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Meeting Location/Attendance ......................................................................................................... 5

Table 2: Public Scoping Meetings: Comment Categories ............................................................................ 6

Table 3: Wyoming RMP/EIS Written Comments: Response Source Enumeration ..................................... 8

Table 4: Written Scoping Comments: Comment Categories ........................................................................ 9

Table 5: Data and Information Submitted During the Scoping Period ....................................................... 31

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1: Public Scoping Process Timeline .................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2: Sage-grouse RMP Amendments Planning Area ............................................................................ 4

Figure 3: Written Scoping Comments: Comment Category Totals .............................................................. 8

Figure 4. Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP amendment/EIS Planning Schedule .............................................. 37

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Written Comments Summary 

Appendix B: Federal Register Publication: Notice of Intent 

Appendix C: Scoping Meeting Announcement Poster, Press Release, and Legal Notice 

Appendix D: Planning Newsletter #1 

Appendix E: Scoping Meeting Materials 
Scoping Report Executive Summary 

Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report documents the public scoping process for the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) 

Wyoming Field Office Programmatic Sage-grouse Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendments and 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This report will amend the RMP/EIS for six BLM Wyoming 

Field Offices: Casper, Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins, and Rock Springs. The report 

summarizes the comments provided by the public and identifies the issues that will be considered in RMP 

amendment development process. 

The purpose of public scoping is to identify issues important to the future management of public lands 

and resources. These issues will guide the development of alternatives that will be evaluated in the EIS 

and will ultimately guide development of the RMP. Scoping also provides the public the opportunity to 

learn about the management of public lands, and assists the BLM with identifying the public’s concerns 

regarding the resources within the planning area. 

Throughout the scoping period, the BLM Wyoming and the six affected field offices fostered open 

communication and solicited input beyond the standard requirements. Public meetings were held in six 

locations throughout the planning area, including Pinedale, Kemmerer, Rock Springs, Newcastle, Casper, 

and Rawlins. Comments were accepted in a variety of formats to ensure that those who wished to 

participate were able to do so effectively. 

Chapter 1 describes the scoping process and gives a general overview of the current situation in the 

planning area. Chapter 2 reports the public scoping results and begins with a summary of BLM public 

outreach, which includes a description of the six public scoping meetings. A total of 42 individuals 

attended the public meetings. Chapter 2 also includes a general summary of the public comments that 

were received during the scoping period. A total of 12 hardcopy letters, 18 email comment letters, and 6 

oral comment submissions were received. 

Chapters 3 and 4 report on the issues identified through the scoping process. Chapter 3 identifies the 

issues that will be considered in the planning process. Chapter 4 identifies the issues that will not be 

carried forward and provides justification for not considering them beyond the scoping phase. Chapter 5 

identifies the planning criteria to be used throughout the planning process. Chapter 6 reports the data 

identified by the public during the scoping process. Chapter 7 provides a general schedule of the planning 

process, identifying opportunities for public input. 

PLAN OVERVIEW

The BLM Wyoming State Office will prepare RMP amendments with an associated EIS for the Casper, 

Green River, Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, and Rawlins RMPs. The planning area comprises the 

Wyoming BLM Casper, Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field Offices, 

encompassing approximately 11 million acres of public land and 20 million acres of federal mineral estate 

in Albany, Carbon, Converse, Crook, Fremont, Goshen, Laramie, Lincoln, Natrona, Niobrara, Platte, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta, and Weston counties in Wyoming. 
Executive Summary Scoping Report 

2 Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 

PUBLIC SCOPING AND ISSUE IDENTIFICATION

The planning process and scoping period began with the publication of the Notice of Intent (NOI) in the 

Federal Register on May 28, 2010. Although the 30-day scoping period ended on June 28, 2010, scoping 

comments were accepted for consideration in the Draft RMP Amendments through August 30, 2010. A 

total of six public scoping meetings were conducted during the scoping period. Figure 1 shows the 

scoping process timeline and associated scoping activities. 

Figure 1: Public Scoping Process Timeline 

Throughout the scoping period, 36 individuals, agencies, and groups provided comments concerning the 

future management of the planning area. Analysis of 366 unique comments resulted in the identification 

of issues to be addressed during development of the Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments. A 

majority of comments emphasized process/policy and special status species. Other issues of high interest 

included, fish and wildlife, livestock grazing, and minerals and energy. Throughout the scoping process, 

issues were raised dealing with the following resources and resource uses: 

• Air Quality 

• Fish and Wildlife 

• General (Process/Policy) 

• Lands and Realty Management 

• Livestock Grazing 

• Minerals and Energy Resources 

• Recreation 

• Socioeconomic 

• Special Management Area Designations 

• Special Status Species 

• Travel and Access Management 

• Vegetation 

• Wildland Fire Management 

Initial Activity

 Scoping Begins 

 Schedule 

Public Scoping 

Meetings 

 Develop and 

Issue Scoping 

and 

Consultation 

Letters 

Meeting Preparation

 Develop and Mail 

Planning Bulletin #1 

 Develop Meeting 

and Presentation 

Materials 

 Issue Press Releases 

Public Meetings

 Hold Public Scoping 

Meetings in Six 

Cities: Casper, 

Kemmerer, 

Newcastle, Pinedale, 

Rawlins, and Rock 

Springs, Wyoming 

Close of Formal 

Scoping

 Public Scoping 

Period Closes 

August 30, 

2010. 

Close of Public 

Scoping Period 

Notice of 

Intent 

May 28, 2010 August 30, 2010 August 3 - 13, 2010

Scoping Meetings 
Scoping Report Chapter 1 

Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 3 

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 

The BLM Wyoming State Office has initiated a planning effort to prepare RMP amendments with an 

associated EIS for the Casper, Green River, Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, and Rawlins RMPs. The 

purpose of the RMP amendments is to address needed changes in the management and conservation of 

Greater sage-grouse habitats within the six BLM field offices to support sage-grouse population 

management objectives for the State of Wyoming. Amending the existing RMPs will provide consistency 

in managing sage-grouse habitat on BLM-administered lands in Wyoming.

The need for the RMP amendments is to address the recent “warranted, but precluded” Endangered 

Species Act listing decision from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (75 FR 13909). The listing decision 

specifically discussed habitat loss and fragmentation concerns that have, along with other factors, caused 

continued decline in Greater sage-grouse populations throughout their range. In accordance with BLM 

Sensitive Species Manual 6840 and responsibilities under Section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act, 

the BLM is mandated to utilize their authority in furtherance of the purposes of the Endangered Species 

Act.

The planning area for the Sage-grouse RMP Amendments comprise the Wyoming BLM Casper, 

Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field Offices, and includes all public lands 

and federal mineral estate managed by the BLM within these six field offices (Figure 2). The planning 

area encompasses approximately 11 million acres of public land and 20 million acres of federal mineral 

estate in Albany, Carbon, Converse, Crook, Fremont, Goshen, Laramie, Lincoln, Natrona, Niobrara, 

Platte, Sublette, Sweetwater, Uinta, and Weston counties in Wyoming. Of the 20 million acres of federal 

mineral estate, approximately 6 million acres are split estate (BLM-administered minerals that underlie 

nonfederal lands). 
Chapter 2 Scoping Report 

4 Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 

Figure 2: Sage-grouse RMP Amendments Planning Area 

The planning process officially started with the publication of the Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal 

Register on May 28, 2010. The NOI announced BLM Wyoming’s intent to prepare RMP amendments 

with an associated EIS for the Casper, Green River, Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, and Rawlins RMPs. 

The NOI also initiated the 30-day scoping period. During the scoping period, the BLM invited 78 state, 

county, and local agencies to participate in the planning process as cooperating agencies and provide 

scoping comments. To date, the BLM has entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with 35 

agencies, which formally acknowledges these agencies as cooperating agencies in the RMP amendment 

process. 

The objective of scoping is to involve the public in the planning process and comply with the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The public scoping process will identify planning issues, 

develop planning criteria, and evaluate the existing land use plan decisions in the context of the needs and 

interests of the public. The BLM held six public scoping meetings in Casper, Kemmerer, Newcastle, 

Pinedale, Rawlins, and Rock Springs, Wyoming, which provided an opportunity for the public to learn 

about the RMP amendment process, ask questions, and provide comments. This scoping report describes 

the scoping process, provides a summary of the public scoping comments received during the scoping 

period, and identifies issues raised in the scoping comments. 
Scoping Report Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 5 

CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS 

The official 30-day scoping period began May 28, 2010 with the publication of the NOI in the Federal 

Register. Although the 30-day scoping period ended on June 28, 2010, scoping comments were accepted 

for consideration in the Draft RMP Amendments through August 30, 2010. Furthermore, the BLM will 

consider issues brought forward any time during the planning process. 

Scoping is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the early stages of developing 

an EIS to determine the scope and significance of issues related to the proposed action (40 Code of 

Federal Regulations [CFR] 1501.7). Scoping helps identify issues important to the management of the 

area, as well as issues and conflicts to be examined in the planning process and ultimately, decisions in 

the RMP. The scoping process is designed to encourage public participation and to solicit public input. 

PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS

Public scoping meetings provide an opportunity for interested parties to submit scoping comments and to 

be involved early in the planning process (40 CFR 1501.7). These meetings are especially important when 

there is “substantial environmental controversy concerning the proposed action or substantial interest in 

holding the [meeting]” (40 CFR 1506.6c1). 

Meeting Logistics and Attendance 

The NOI (Appendix B) announced that BLM would hold local public scoping meetings. The actual dates, 

meeting locations, and times were announced later in the project newsletter and a press release issued on 

July 20, 2010. Both the press release (Appendix C) and newsletter (Appendix D) were posted on the 

project website (http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/amendments.html). BLM held six 

public scoping meetings over a two-week period in Casper, Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins, 

and Rock Springs, Wyoming. Attendance at each scoping meeting was recorded using a sign-in sheet at 

the registration station. Table 1 below shows the locations, dates, and registered attendance for each 

scoping meeting. 

Table 1: Meeting Location/Attendance 

Meeting Location Meeting Date Registered Attendance 

Pinedale, Wyoming August 3, 2010 8 

Kemmerer, Wyoming August 4, 2010 9 

Rock Springs, Wyoming August 5, 2010 5 

Newcastle, Wyoming August 11, 2010 0 

Casper, Wyoming August 12, 2010 14 

Rawlins, Wyoming August 13, 2010 6 

Total 42 

The meetings were conducted in an open house format from 4-7 p.m., allowing attendees to arrive and 

depart freely throughout the three-hour period. Informational posters were displayed throughout the 

meeting room, which provided specific project-related information. Additional informational handouts 

were provided as well. Hardcopy comment forms were provided on a separate table to allow attendees to 
Chapter 2 Scoping Report 

6 Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 

draft written scoping comments, which could be submitted at the scoping meetings or mailed to the BLM 

Wyoming State Office. All information presented at the public scoping meetings is included in Appendix 

E. A court reporter was present at the meetings to provide an opportunity for attendees to submit oral 

comments, which were documented in written transcripts. For those who could not attend the public 

scoping meetings or preferred not to comment at the meetings, other methods of providing comments 

were provided during the scoping period, including mailing, emailing, or hand-delivering written 

comments. 

Number and Type of Comments Received 

A total of 20 oral comments provided by six individuals were recorded at four public meetings; no oral 

comments were recorded at the Newcastle or Rock Springs meetings. Written comments were not 

submitted at any of the six public meetings. Individual comments were read in their entirety and all 

distinct comments were categorized by primary topic/issue. Some comments addressed more than one 

comment category. Such comments were categorized by the primary topic/issue. Comments categorized 

as “General” pertain to planning and policy issues or broad management concepts covering a range of 

resource areas. 

Table 2 shows the number of comments received by topic/issue. This enumeration is not intended to show 

bias towards any particular issue; it is simply to convey the level of interest in a specific issue/area. 

Table 2: Public Scoping Meetings: Comment Categories 

Comment Category Number of Comments Percent of 

Total 

Fish and Wildlife 5 25% 

General 3 15% 

Livestock Grazing 1 5% 

Minerals and Energy 1 5% 

Recreation 1 5% 

Special Status Species 9 45% 

Total 20 100% 

Summary of Meeting Comments 

As explained above, each comment was categorized into one distinct resource category. Following is a 

summary of the comments received, organized by such categories. All comments submitted during the 

scoping period are included in Appendix A. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Fish and wildlife comments focused on the health and restoration of sagebrush habitat. Comments 

addressed how BLM management should address the entire sagebrush ecosystem, as other sagebrush 

obligate species’ populations are also in decline. Respondents recommended that BLM utilize all existing 

scientific literature regarding sagebrush ecosystems to inform its management decisions. Comments also 

addressed the need to consider opportunities to restore degraded sage-grouse habitat as potential 

mitigation measures for project proponents. 
Scoping Report Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 7 

General (Process/Policy) 

General comments addressed other BLM IMs and cooperator involvement. One comment requested that 

BLM consider all IMs related to sage-grouse in the development of the RMP amendment, such as 

Wyoming IM 2010-022 (addresses fences and wind energy structures) and IM 2010-071 (addresses sagegrouse management considerations for energy development). Another comment expressed concerns with 

BLM’s low level of communication with cooperating agencies. 

Livestock Grazing 

The one comment pertaining to livestock grazing addressed the need for BLM to enhance the ability of 

private landowners to continue grazing on private lands that provide key sage-grouse habitat. 

Minerals and Energy 

The one comment regarding minerals and energy recommended that tank batteries be consolidated into 

1,000- to 10,000-barrel tanks to reduce the miles of vehicle travel required to access these facilities. 

Recreation 

The one comment pertaining to recreation addressed disturbances to sage-grouse from dispersed 

recreation users. The respondent is concerned that managing recreation use is not a component of the new 

Wyoming sage-grouse management policy, as some users (e.g., OHV users) can have a greater impact on 

sage-grouse leks and populations than some oil and gas operations. 

Special Status Species 

Comments regarding special status species primarily addressed sage-grouse and sage-grouse core areas. 

Respondents raised concerns that focusing sage-grouse management on core areas would lessen 

protections in non-core areas, which could be detrimental to the species. Respondents recommended that 

management address all threats to sage-grouse, including predation by other species. Comments 

addressed the validity of sage-grouse data and suggested BLM ensure that sufficient data has been 

collected to make management decisions. Other comments questioned how sage-grouse populations could 

be effectively managed while much of the BLM-administered lands are already leased for mineral 

development. 

WRITTEN SCOPING COMMENTS

In addition to receiving comments from public scoping meetings, the BLM Wyoming State Office 

solicited written scoping comments. Written comments were accepted through August 30, 2010. 

Method of Submittal 

A total of 30 written comment letters were received during the scoping period. These comments were 

submitted via mail and email (Table 3). Several comment letters were received multiple times and/or in 

multiple formats (e.g., mail and email). When identical letters were submitted by the same respondent, the 

earlier response was retained in the public record. A total of 34 emails were received during the scoping 

period; however, only 18 of those contained comments. Of the 16 emails that did not contain comments, 

11 were requests to be added to the mailing list and 5 were junk (spam) email. 
Chapter 2 Scoping Report 

8 Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 

Table 3: Wyoming RMP/EIS Written Comments: Response Source Enumeration 

Method of Submittal Comments Received 

Email 18 

Mail 12 

Total Responses 30 

Number and Type of Comments Received 

After the scoping period ended on August 30, 2010, the comment letters were entered into a database. 

Each comment letter was read in its entirety and all distinct comments were recorded and coded for 

enumeration and analysis. Comments were enumerated using standard database and spreadsheet software. 

Individual comments were categorized by primary topic regardless of the position of the comment 

regarding the topic. Several comments addressed more than one comment category or topic. These 

comments were categorized by the primary topic. Comments categorized as “General” pertain to planning 

or policy issues, or broad management concepts covering a range of resource areas. The comment 

analysis process equally considered all written and oral comments based on the issues raised and 

information provided. 

Figure 3 and Table 4 show the number of comments received by topic/issue. This enumeration is not 

intended to show bias towards any particular issue; it is simply to convey the level of interest in a specific 

issue/area. 

Figure 3: Written Scoping Comments: Comment Category Totals 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Written Comments by Category
Scoping Report Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 9 

Table 4: Written Scoping Comments: Comment Categories 

Comment Category Number of Comments Percent of Total 

Air Quality 1 0.3% 

Fish and Wildlife 6 1.7% 

General (Process/Policy) 125 36.1% 

Lands and Realty 7 2.0% 

Livestock Grazing 24 6.9% 

Minerals and Energy 25 7.2% 

Socioeconomic 6 1.7% 

Special Designations 5 1.4% 

Special Status Species 139 40.2% 

Travel and Access Management 4 1.2% 

Vegetation 3 0.9% 

Wildland Fire Management 1 0.3% 

Total 346 100%

Summary of Written Comments 

Prior to categorizing the written comments, comment categories were developed to organize the 

comments. Following is a summary of the comments received, organized by comment category. All 

comments submitted during the scoping period are included in Appendix A. 

Air Quality 

The one comment regarding air quality focused on ensuring that climate change is addressed in the RMP 

amendments. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Fish and wildlife comments focused on the health of sagebrush habitat, habitat restoration, and 

management of sagebrush ecosystems. Comments addressed the current conditions of the sagebrush 

habitat and threats to the health of the habitat, such as fragmentation from mineral development and other 

uses, livestock grazing, and the proliferation of invasive species. Concerns about the effectiveness of 

restoration of sagebrush habitat due to low precipitation, cheatgrass invasion, and wildland fire were 

addressed in the comments as well. 

General (Process/Policy) 

General comments addressed the planning process, a variety of policies and policy issues, and a range of 

questions and recommendations. Many comments recommended using the best available science and 

specific documents in the development of the RMP amendments, such as BLM Instruction Memoranda 

(IM), BLM policy documents, other state and federal environmental policies, and scientific journal 

articles. 
Chapter 2 Scoping Report 

10 Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 

Comments suggested limiting the scope of the amendments to the Wyoming sage-grouse management 

policy only. Respondents recommended that specific portions of the policy be changed or omitted in the 

RMP amendments, including the buffer distances and restrictions within core areas. There were specific 

questions about the policy and how the policy would be included in the RMP amendments. Respondents 

requested terminology definitions, such as “disruptive activity” and “suitable habitat.” 

Comments contained suggestions for different management approaches, resource areas to focus on for 

analysis, and overall development of the RMP amendments. Other comments recommended that BLM 

provide adequate staff to process mineral leases and other lease-related paperwork and enforce the plan 

once it was finalized. Respondents requested the planning process be open and transparent, following the 

NEPA regulations. 

Lands and Realty 

The main issue in the lands and realty category addressed power lines and rights-of-way (ROW) for 

transmission lines. Comments addressed the Wyoming sage-grouse management policy, how the policy 

would impact construction of transmission lines and corridors, and how power lines and corridors could 

impact sage-grouse. 

Livestock Grazing 

Livestock grazing comments addressed both the continuation and elimination of livestock grazing 

practices. Concerns regarding the impacts of livestock grazing on sage-grouse habitat included the spread 

of weeds, soil loss, and range deterioration. Other comments encouraged BLM to coordinate with 

livestock grazing permittees in the RMP amendment process and to incorporate livestock grazing 

management as an important part of the RMP amendments. 

Minerals and Energy 

Minerals and energy comments addressed the benefits and detriments to sage-grouse of wind and 

conventional energy development on BLM-administered lands. The comments cited a variety of concerns 

regarding mineral development and the impact development could have on sage-grouse and their habitat, 

such as lek and nest abandonment, habitat fragmentation, and overall habitat loss. Comments also noted 

the need for mineral and wind energy development in Wyoming and the efforts operators are making to 

support sage-grouse and associated habitat. There was a range of questions regarding the Wyoming sagegrouse management policy and the effects the policy could have on mineral development, such as buffer 

distances, reclamation requirements, well density, and regulations on development in non-core areas. 

Socioeconomic 

The comments focused on the adverse economic impacts the Wyoming sage-grouse management policy 

and management decisions in the RMP amendments could have on industry and local economies in 

Wyoming. 

Special Designations 

The comments recommended that core areas could be protected through designations of Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC) and the RMP amendments should consider ACECs to protect sagegrouse. 
Scoping Report Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 11 

Special Status Species 

The majority of the comments focused on how the Wyoming sage-grouse management policy would or 

would not protect the sage-grouse and associated habitat. Suggestions for management changes were 

submitted, including greater buffer distances, additional seasonal stipulations, and expansion or reduction 

of core areas. There were also questions of clarification regarding the Wyoming sage-grouse management 

policy, core areas, and how the new policy would be incorporated into the RMP amendments. 

The Comments also recommended ways to research and collect data for sage-grouse and sage-grouse 

habitat for inclusion in the RMP amendments. Specific comments about ESA policy and management 

were included in this category. Comments addressed reasons for sage-grouse population declines and 

threats to the species, including intensive resource uses and development, human disturbance, predation, 

habitat fragmentation, and habitat loss. Specific sage-grouse habitat requirements, such as migration 

corridors and lek, nesting, winter, and brood-rearing habitat, were described and addressed in the 

comments. 

Travel and Access Management 

Travel and access management comments primarily addressed roads and access routes. Some comments 

addressed the harmful impacts to sage-grouse and their habitat from vehicle use. Other comments raised 

concerns about the potential for reduced access on BLM land. 

Vegetation 

Vegetation comments addressed vegetation treatments and the benefits of those treatments on sagebrush 

habitat. One comment addressed the threat of cheatgrass and other invasive species on sagebrush habitat. 

Wildland Fire Management 

The one wildland fire comment addressed the merits of prescribed fire use in enhancing sagebrush 

habitat. 

 
Chapter 2 Scoping Report 

12 Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 

This page intentionally left blank
Scoping Report Chapter 3 

Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 13 

CHAPTER 3 ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING SCOPING 

Scoping is a dynamic process that assists with identifying issues to be addressed in the RMP 

amendments/EIS. The BLM planning handbook defines planning issues as disputes or controversies about 

existing and potential land and resource allocations, levels of resource use, production, and related 

management practices. Issues include resource use, development, and protection opportunities for 

consideration in the preparation of the RMP amendments. 

To generate the issues from public comments, all public comments were analyzed and key points were 

summarized. Each issue was identified as a position-neutral statement or question that sets the 

groundwork for development of alternative solutions to be analyzed in the EIS. The following sections 

include a compilation of all scoping issues that were raised during the scoping period. Since the scoping 

process is dynamic and continual, scoping issues are subject to change throughout the planning process as 

new conditions and/or information are identified. Issues are organized by comment category. Similar 

issues were grouped where possible. The categories below are organized alphabetically and are not 

ordered based on the number of comments received or perceived importance of the issues. Duplicate 

issues were only listed once. 

Air Quality 

1. Will the RMP amendments address climate change? 

 Fish and Wildlife 

1. Research shows that it may be less difficult to maintain sagebrush habitat at higher elevations that 

receive greater precipitation. 

2. Research shows that areas converted to crop agriculture, urban development, etc. have low 

potential for restoration. 

3. Significant sage-grouse habitat overlaps with BLM special designations. BLM should increase 

restrictions within special designations areas to further protect sage-grouse habitat within these 

areas. 

4. Recovery of sagebrush habitat should be emphasized in the RMP amendments. 

5. Non-core areas should be managed according to science; they should not be "sacrifice" areas. 

6. The BLM should manage the sagebrush ecosystem and sagebrush obligates in a comprehensive 

manner. 

7. The BLM should consider restoration of existing degraded habitat as opportunities for mitigation. 

8. The BLM should consider using adaptive management as a tool that would allow field offices to 

modify their management approach based upon new data acquired through activity monitoring. 

 General (Process/Policy) 

1. BLM must fully disclose the NEPA process, the selection of alternatives, and impacts identified 

in the analysis. 
Chapter 3 Scoping Report 

14 Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 

2. The planning process should be open and transparent with ample opportunity for public input. 

3. The purpose and need of the RMP amendments should clearly state the conservation and 

protection goals of the BLM, and the alternatives should be designed to meet this conservationfocused purpose and need. 

4. The BLM should identify a robust range of reasonable alternatives, and each alternative should be 

considered in detail. 

5. Indirect effects and benefits to other sage-dependent species should be disclosed in the EIS. 

6. The BLM should consider interim actions to protect sage-grouse pending the RMP amendments, 

including a leasing moratorium. 

7. Pending the approval of the RMP amendments, BLM must conduct comprehensive site-specific 

NEPA analyses of the implementation of specific actions. 

8. Will BLM’s previous efforts at sage-grouse management be analyzed in the RMP amendments? 

9. Will the proposed management in the RMP amendments go beyond the current management to 

remove stressors impacting the sage-grouse? 

10. The RMP amendments should focus only on the analysis of sage-grouse habitat protection and 

refrain from revising other elements in the existing RMPs. 

11. The RMP amendments should clearly state that BLM intends to fulfill adaptive managementrelated decisions and must establish a framework for ensuring this occurs. 

12. Will the RMP amendments consider the efforts of local working groups, site specific research, 

and incorporate that information into the planning process? 

13. The BLM should use the best available, peer reviewed science and sage-grouse inventories when 

developing the RMP amendments. 

14. Will the RMP amendments conduct a thorough review of up-to-date scientific literature? 

15. Effective best management practices and new stipulations, based on sound science, should be 

included in the amended RMPs. 

16. How will impacts from actions outside the planning area be included in the RMP amendments? 

17. Direct, indirect, cumulative, economic, social, and environmental effects need to be considered in 

the RMP amendments. 

18. The BLM must consider impacts of livestock grazing, consider alternatives to the current grazing 

regime, evaluate the cumulative impacts of livestock grazing, energy development, and climate 

change; and comply with BLM's National Sagebrush Habitat Conservation Strategy. 

19. The BLM must fully disclose a comprehensive reasonably foreseeable development scenario that 

will allow the agency to analyze cumulative impacts. This analysis must include not only 

foreseeable extractive mineral development (resulting from past, present, and future leasing or 

mineral locating) but also the possibility of large industrial facilities such as processing facilities, 
Scoping Report Chapter 3 

Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 15 

refineries, coal fired-power plants, electrical substations and other transmission infrastructure, 

carbon sequestration facilities, wind energy, natural gas plants, and pipelines. BLM should also 

consider non-BLM authorized activity and climatic impacts, such as drought, fire, and climate 

change. 

20. If the Wyoming Governor’s Sage-grouse Implementation Team (SGIT) Recommendations are 

approved, how will BLM incorporate them into the RMP amendments? 

21. The BLM should provide for management flexibility in order to reduce the need to prepare 

additional planning amendments. 

22. Will the RMP amendments include the Governor’s Executive Order (2010-4)? 

23. Will BLM wait until the revisions to the Governor’s Sage-grouse Policy have been made and 

incorporated into the IMs before the RMP amendments are initiated? 

24. Will the BLM ensure the management requirements and stipulations included in the RMP 

amendments are consistent with the guidance from the SGIT and the WGFD? 

25. The BLM should incorporate all national and state IMs related to sage-grouse into the RMP 

amendments. 

26. The BLM should work with the Department of Energy regarding the Wildlife Decision Support 

System Pilot Studies and integrate the information from those studies in the RMP amendments. 

27. Will BLM consider using the WAFWA approach to sage-grouse conservation? 

28. How will the BLM incorporate Wyoming Executive Order 2010-4, as it replaces Wyoming 

Executive Order 2008-2? 

29. The BLM should define/clarify “suitable habitat,” “functional habitat,” “disturbing activity,” 

“disruptive activity,” “surface disturbance,” “eleven square miles of contiguous, manageable, 

unleased Federal minerals,” and “potential drainage issues?” 

30. The BLM should incorporate language regarding exemptions for emergency activities. 

31. Will the RMP amendments consider the effects on grazing permittees, agriculture producers, 

landowners, other citizens, and the natural resources in Wyoming? 

32. Will meetings with cooperating agencies take place to help develop goals, objectives, 

management actions, alternatives, and Draft and Final EIS documents? 

33. The amendment should allow BLM officials and grazing permittees the opportunity to work 

cooperatively and provide flexibility in making case-by-case decisions in the best interest of 

affected natural resources and area citizens. 

34. Will BLM consider non-government agencies, organizations, and groups as stakeholders in the 

RMP amendment process? 

35. Will BLM provide a sufficient number of staff members to prepare the RMP amendments, 

process APDs, and prepare other NEPA documents in an efficient and timely manner while 

managing other resource programs? 
Chapter 3 Scoping Report 

16 Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 

36. The BLM should use a collaborative planning process to make any adjustments to key habitat 

areas. 

37. The scope of the RMP amendments should be limited to management of the sage-grouse core 

areas set forth by the SGIT and should consider all resources and resource uses impacted by the 

new policies. 

38. The RMP amendments should address how BLM plans to honor valid existing lease rights within 

sage-grouse core areas. 

39. Will the RMP amendments consider areas with disturbance densities within sage-grouse core 

areas that are greater than specified in the Wyoming sage-grouse management policy, and would 

these areas be excluded from the core areas? 

40. What basis will be used to determine sage-grouse connectivity areas and corridors, and will the 

corridors be located outside of the core areas? 

41. Will projects with impacts in core areas be required to include offsite mitigation and if so what 

ratio of impacted area to offsite mitigation acres will be required; will BLM impose this 

mitigation consistently on all proposed projects within core areas; and will offsite mitigation be 

required outside core areas? 

42. The planning criteria for the Sage-grouse amendments should be expanded to address potential 

restrictions on wind development, transmission corridors, and other non-oil and gas related 

activities in sage-grouse core areas. 

43. Does the BLM intend to incentivize development outside of sage-grouse core areas? 

44. BLM should consider alternatives and mitigation measures which include larger buffers between 

sage-grouse habitat and surface activity, protecting sage-grouse nesting and winter habitat, 

changing boundaries of core areas identified by the state, reducing mineral development 

infrastructure, increasing well spacing, locating wells outside of sage-grouse habitat, requiring 

underground power lines, reducing human activity through travel plans (requiring site visits to 

occur outside dawn or dusk hours and/or be limited to several times a week), reducing noise of 

development through preventing diesel generators, minimizing the spread of West Nile virus 

through evaporation ponds, and phased development (with reclamation requirements for habitat 

before future development is allowed to proceed). 

45. Wyoming’s Core Areas Framework must be fully vetted and discussed in the RMP 

amendments/EIS, including mitigation measures for both core areas and non-core areas. 

46. Will the RMP amendments consider habitat conditions when evaluating individual oil and gas 

projects? 

47. Will the West Nile virus management practices apply to existing reservoirs? 

48. Will the BLM develop a "no net loss" policy for sagebrush habitat? 

49. Will the RMP amendments address all potential disturbing/disruptive activities, including wind 

farms, mining operations, recreation sites, campgrounds, etc.? 
Scoping Report Chapter 3 

Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 17 

50. How will BLM decide which use or user will have priority to create new disturbances? 

51. Will disturbance caps apply only to new disturbance after adoption of the RMP amendments? 

52. The RMP amendments should discuss the various reasons why the goal of consolidating 

anthropogenic features on the landscape cannot be achieved in many instances due to various 

reasons, including economic, land ownership patterns, geologic, practicality, and others. 

53. The RMP amendments should clarify how the density of one disturbance location per 640 acres 

will be calculated. Will standard PLSS sections be used to define the 640 acres within which the 

disturbance will be evaluated? 

54. Does IM 2010-012 apply to transmission lines, and does each tower constitute a separate 

“disturbance” or can the project footprint across the 640-acre area be considered one 

“disturbance?” 

55. The “11 square miles of contiguous habitat” filter that is available for oil and gas disturbance, 

should also be available for transmission line construction and operation as well? 

56. Will sage-grouse hunting be addressed in the RMP amendments? 

57. The RMP amendments should address if and how a Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) 

would affect future planning decisions. 

58. The planning criteria in the RMP amendments should include an objective ensuring management 

decisions are complimentary to other planning jurisdictions and adjoining properties. 

Lands and Realty 

1. The RMP amendments should address lek buffers for transmission lines. 

2. How will ROWs be managed in the RMP amendments? 

3. Consider excluding the West-wide energy corridors and existing transmission line corridors from 

the sage-grouse core areas in the RMP amendments. 

4. The RMP amendments should consider the requirement for line separation when developing 

recommendations and stipulations pertaining to transmission. 

Livestock Grazing 

1. Will the RMP amendments prohibit livestock grazing activities? 

2. Impacts from livestock grazing on sage-grouse habitat should be considered in the RMP 

amendments. 

3. Livestock grazing in sage-grouse habitat should be re-assessed to prevent habitat loss from 

grazing. 

4. The RMP amendments should analyze the impacts on livestock grazing management from 

implementing the Wyoming sage-grouse management policy. 
Chapter 3 Scoping Report 

18 Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 

5. The efficacy of range improvements, land treatments, and grazing practices should be considered 

in the RMP amendments. 

6. Grazing utilization rates should be thoroughly analyzed in the RMP amendments using all 

available science and policy. 

7. The RMP amendments should consider a no grazing alternative, a reduction of grazing, or 

reduction of AUMs in the alternatives. 

8. Will the indicators listed in the Rangeland Health Standards or other standards be included in the 

RMP amendments? 

9. Will the BLM consider a federally-funded permit retirement program in the RMP amendments? 

10. Will BLM inform and work with the grazing permittees in the development of the RMP 

amendments? 

11. Will the RMP amendments/EIS chapters on affected environment and environmental 

consequences acknowledge the improvements of rangeland health that have occurred through the 

coordinated efforts of BLM and grazing permittees? 

12. Chapter 2 of the RMP amendments should be written with the understanding that livestock 

grazing is an important resource value and the goals, objectives, and management actions for 

livestock grazing management include the promotion of livestock grazing management. 

Minerals and Energy 

1. Will wind energy be withdrawn in core areas? 

2. The BLM should acknowledge the need for new research and information specifically related to 

wind and uranium development. 

3. The RMP amendments should not preclude wind development in the sage-grouse core areas. 

4. The Wind Energy Development Policy (lM-2009-043) should guide the RMP amendments. 

5. Consideration for the amount of natural gas in Wyoming and the impacts of limiting the access to 

the resource should be included in the RMP amendments. 

6. Will the planning process amend the Reasonably Foreseeable Development scenarios for the 

RMP amendments to accommodate more management requirements? 

7. If the Reasonably Foreseeable Development scenarios are amended, they should use the most 

recent data for resource potential. 

8. Will the negative impacts to sage-grouse from coalbed natural gas development be considered in 

the RMP amendments, including impacts to breeding season and winter populations? 

9. Will the impacts of habitat fragmentation, loss, and disturbance from oil and gas development be 

included in the RMP amendments? 
Scoping Report Chapter 3 

Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 19 

10. Nesting and lek location and nesting success near natural gas development should be analyzed in 

the RMP amendments. 

11. Well density should be considered in the RMP revision, including density no greater than one 

well per section within 3 km of a lek. 

12. How does BLM intend to resolve the potential conflict of well spacing and geologic structure 

without destroying the viability of a proposed project? 

13. Will the RMP amendments a decision-tree approach to determining appropriate recommendations 

for leasing lands in core areas for wind energy and uranium development? 

14. Improvements for safety and efficiency regarding oil and gas development should be addressed in 

the RMP amendments. 

15. The RMP amendments should discuss the dynamic mitigation measures that have been utilized 

by the oil and gas industry for over two decades to protect sage-grouse. 

16. Has the BLM formulated specific criteria that will be used to determine the degree to which 

mineral reductions should occur? How can a reduction of existing production be accomplished 

without abrogating operators’ valid existing rights? 

17. The RMP amendments should address the level of activity will be permitted outside of the sagegrouse core areas? 

18. What will be expected from industry in terms of data collection and post-project monitoring? The 

RMP amendments should explain the degree to which BLM’s authorities allow imposition of 

monitoring requirements on operators. 

19. Will the RMP amendments consider timing flexibility for seeding activities and reclamation 

efforts in the Powder River Basin? 

20. The BLM must recognize that some operators have financial limitations or return on investment 

expectations that would preclude the use of subsurface injection or other more costly water 

management options. 

Recreation 

1. The level of allowable recreation use should be considered in the RMP amendments, as such use 

can create substantial impacts to sage-grouse habitat. 

Socioeconomic 

1. Will the EIS consider the socioeconomic impacts on the oil and gas industry in the RMP 

amendments? 

2. Will the EIS consider the socioeconomic impacts on the economies of the state, local, and 

national governments from implementing new sage-grouse management policies? 
Chapter 3 Scoping Report 

20 Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 

3. These amendments will directly affect the continuation of livestock grazing and other agricultural 

operations on federal and private lands within and adjacent to the planning area and associated 

evaluations of economic impacts should be included in the EIS. 

4. The RMP amendments should consider how the core area restrictions will reduce economic 

activity, will reduce jobs in the private sector, and will reduce royalty and tax payments to all 

levels of government. 

5. BLM should thoroughly analyze the socioeconomic impacts related to BLM’s discretionary 

ability to defer leasing to protect sage-grouse habitat. 

6. The RMP amendments/EIS should disclose any uncertainties in the socioeconomic analysis to 

allow the reader to understand agency decision making. 

Special Management Area Designations 

1. Will the RMP amendments create large-scale sage-grouse ACECs over large areas of nesting, 

brood rearing and winter habitat with enforceable objectives and requirements specific to sagegrouse recovery? 

2. BLM should designate large, interconnected patches of intact sagebrush as ACECs and establish 

appropriate management practices to protect these habitats for sage-grouse and other sagebrushobligate species. 

Special Status Species 

1. Will the BLM incorporate an exception request BMP in the RMP amendments? 

2. All factors, including agricultural conversion, invasive species, high intensity grazing, fire, offroad vehicle activities, tree encroachment, and climate change, should also be considered as 

cumulative impacts to sage-grouse. 

3. Will the RMP amendments expand core areas beyond what the State of Wyoming has 

recommended? 

4. The BLM should enforce its authority over all of the sage-grouse core area lands to protect key 

habitat. 

5. The BLM will need to continuously update and improve data to effectively manage the sagegrouse core areas. 

6. Will sage-grouse core areas be classified as low risk and high risk and managed accordingly? 

7. Will the sage-grouse core areas be subject to revision? 

8. The RMP amendments should consider lease deferral in small, high quality areas of sage-grouse 

habitat. 

9. The RMP amendments should address the shortcomings of the sage-grouse core area approach, 

including the excluding areas of intensive development, inadequate protections for seasonal 

habitats, and the ability to change core area boundaries. 
Scoping Report Chapter 3 

Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 21 

10. Are stipulations/restrictions needed to control, reduce, and/or reroute traffic (related to mineral 

development [salable minerals]) on roadways within sage-grouse core areas? 

11. In core areas where there is no sage-grouse habitat, what is the basis for the minimum 725-acre 

patch size? 

12. The RMP amendments should limit analyses to 4 miles from leks that are contained within the 

project area and eleven miles where there is evidence that the populations are migratory. The 

BLM should explain the type and components of these evaluations as well as identify how the 

results of the evaluation might be used to modify a project outside of the sage-grouse core areas. 

13. Will the RMP amendments support the establishment of the 2-mile wide corridor in sage-grouse 

core areas? 

14. Surface disturbing activities, surface occupancy, and disruptive activities should be prohibited or 

restricted within 4 miles of the perimeter of leks in core areas year-round. Outside of core areas 

the same types of surface disturbing activities and disruptions should be prohibited or restricted 

within 2 miles of the perimeter of occupied or undetermined leks throughout the year. 

15. Will BLM consider buffers larger than 0.25 miles outside of core areas? 

16. Surface disturbing and disruptive activities should be prohibited or restricted on nesting/early 

brood-rearing habitat from the 4 mile core area lek buffer out to 11 miles surrounding the leks 

from March 15 to June 30. 

17. Density goals inside the sage-grouse core areas should prohibit disturbances cumulatively 

exceeding 5%. 

18. How will the RMP amendments address habitats adjacent to or nearby a sage-grouse core area 

where there is no documented evidence of use by core area birds? 

19. How will the BLM determine the degree of supporting information required to constitute winter 

habitat that supports sage-grouse core areas? 

20. Will sage-grouse winter habitat be managed the same as core areas? 

21. Will sage-grouse winter habitat/concentration area seasonal restrictions apply to any area where a 

bird from a core area lek winters? 

22. Sage-grouse migration routes and seasonal habitat should be identified and included in the RMP 

amendments. 

23. Seasonal habitat is important, as it provides for the connectivity of populations to maintain 

genetic viability. Connectivity areas should be identified and included in the RMP amendments. 

24. Surface disturbing and disruptive activities should be prohibited or restricted from November 15 

to March 30 within all known sage-grouse winter habitat/concentration areas. 

25. More research needed regarding sage-grouse migratory patterns and habitat use. 

26. The BLM needs to survey for winter habitat using habitat models in conjunction with on-theground information/data. 
Chapter 3 Scoping Report 

22 Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 

27. Will the sage-grouse winter habitat/concentration area restrictions include limitations of one hour 

or more during a 24-hour period? Will this same standard be applied during the nesting season 

for production, maintenance and operations of oil and gas wells? 

28. Will fences be marked in winter concentration areas, nesting habitat, or within 3 miles of a lek? 

29. What types of restrictions will be imposed in sage-grouse concentration areas where the origin of 

the birds is unknown? 

30. Sustainability of non-core area populations and core area populations from connectivity corridors 

should be considered in the RMP amendments. 

31. Will the BLM defer to the Wyoming Governor’s identification of important connectivity 

corridors for the State of Wyoming, and what criteria will BLM use to identify connectivity 

areas? 

32. Will the BLM re-consider the allowable levels of resource extraction in the RMP amendments? 

33. The BLM should refrain from adopting all new sage-grouse management recommendations; 

rather the BLM should study all available data before adopting increasingly restrictive 

management goals and objectives. 

34. BLM should consider predator control measures to protect sage-grouse. 

35. Will the RMP amendments have a goal to expand suitable sagebrush habitat? 

36. The RMP amendments should consider the vegetation cover and other habitat recommendations 

that are described in Connelly et al. 2000. 

37. Will active habitat restoration of sage-grouse habitat be included in the RMP amendments? 

38. Would sagebrush canopy cover be managed to achieve specific cover rates for nesting and other 

habitat? 

39. Range-wide conservation of Greater sage-grouse will require broad-scale characterization of 

habitat quality and an understanding of the influence of landscape condition on the persistence of 

populations. 

40. Research should be conducted to ensure that activities such as "habitat improvement" are 

beneficial to sagebrush habitat. 

41. The BLM must develop goals for the protection and restoration of sagebrush habitat, including 

both "active" and "passive" restoration techniques. 

42. Will herbicide, prescribed burning, or mechanical treatments be allowed within sage-grouse 

habitats in the RMP amendments? 

43. BLM land use plans across the sage-grouse range should be amended, including establishing 

Sagebrush Reserve ACECs and adopting other protective management measures necessary to 

implement the conservation plan and ensure the survival and recovery of Greater sage-grouse. 
Scoping Report Chapter 3 

Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 23 

44. The research cited to by the BLM does not indicate that a 0.6 mile buffer is sufficient for the 

protection of sage-grouse leks. 

45. Sage-grouse lek buffers should be measured from the center of a lek, not form lek boundaries, as 

lek boundaries are not always identified; and that buffers be applicable unless the transmission 

line is sited within identified or designated corridors. In addition, perch discouragers should not 

be required when transmission or distribution is located outside of the 0.6 mile buffer. 

46. Will BLM manage Special Status Species as defined in BLM Manual 6840? 

47. The RMP amendments must provide specific requirements to meet the primary objective of 

recovering sage-grouse. The requirements should be placed into all land use permits as terms and 

conditions of use. 

48. Annual breeding population assessments should be included in the RMP amendments. 

49. Will the RMP amendments consider sage-grouse population trends? 

50. Will monitoring for fall survival rates of sage-grouse populations be included in the RMP 

amendments? 

51. A band of habitat extending from northern, central and southwestern Wyoming, to northeastern 

Utah, southern Idaho and northern Nevada, and to southern and central Oregon is shown to be 

most important for sage-grouse. 

52. The BLM should ensure that uses that do not conflict with sage-grouse management are not 

unnecessarily restricted. 

53. How will lands with existing leases and existing rights be handled in the RMP amendments? 

54. Criteria for identification of sage-grouse habitats, their suitability and future resource 

management actions in these potential areas should be disclosed and BLM should include 

consideration of population augmentation as a mitigation measure. 

55. The RMP amendments must not become so prescriptive that incorporation of new and evolving 

science and data into management of sagebrush habitats would be prohibitive or unnecessarily 

restricted absent new planning decisions. 

56. The BLM should refrain from utilizing the WGFD’s “Recommendations for Development of Oil 

and Gas within Crucial and Important Wildlife Habitats” (Recommendations) as the basis for 

development of significance criteria. BLM must first take into account the conservation benefits 

derived from adopting the Strategy on a statewide basis. 

57. When using Adaptive Management, feedback mechanisms need to be created between monitoring 

results (ecosystem response) and management adjustments. 

58. What uses would fall under the lesser restrictions of 2 miles and 0.25 mile? 

59. What criteria would be utilized to identify sage-grouse functional habitats? 

60. The BLM must ensure that WGFD management goals for sage-grouse do not become the sole 

driver for resource use allocations. 
Chapter 3 Scoping Report 

24 Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 

61. What elements will monitoring protocols contain and will they be incorporated into project 

permits? How will monitoring redundancy be avoided? 

62. Has BLM adopted standards and criteria regarding the application of non site-specific studies for 

areas not actually addressed in a local study? 

63. The BLM should set forth a mechanism for providing a public status report in each field office on 

projects benefiting sage-grouse or sagebrush. BLM must be responsible for monitoring the lands 

it is responsible for managing and setting forth mechanisms to allow individual project exceptions 

based on positive growth in local sage-grouse populations. 

64. Will the BLM commit to honoring actual data over modeling exercises when designating various 

habitats? 

65. The RMP amendments should address the significant work already done by the BLM and 

industry to ensure the long-term survival of the sage-grouse. 

66. We believe the RMP amendments should include minimal additional restrictions on use, as the 

Greater sage-grouse is not listed under the ESA. 

67. Will the BLM consider the funding of research as an acceptable form of mitigation or component 

of a mitigation strategy? Will the BLM consider the establishment of a mechanism or program 

which project proponents may voluntarily use to facilitate the allocation and management of 

mitigation dollars to fund appropriate projects for the improvement of sagebrush habitat? 

68. BLM should follow the guidance of FLPMA to manage Greater sage-grouse habitat. 

69. BLM should follow the recommendations of BLM Manual 6840 and start planning for the sagegrouse in a manner that protects habitat, reduces conflict with energy development (and other 

factors), and allows the BLM flexible management strategies that result in the ultimate 

conservation of the sage-grouse. 

70. Field offices and other agencies must coordinate regarding all development plans and RMPs, 

including sharing information with regard to how new development may affect sage-grouse 

habitat. 

71. The RMP amendments should consider regional populations of sage-grouse and the impact on 

populations outside of Wyoming. 

72. The RMP amendments should address the year-round habitat needs of sage-grouse. 

73. Because the sage-grouse is a landscape-scale species, ensuring the species’ survival requires 

comprehensive analysis of remaining habitats and populations on a range-wide basis, and then 

adopting a range-wide conservation plan to ensure that adequate regulatory mechanisms are in 

place to protect the species across its range. 

Travel and Access Management 

1. How will the new sage-grouse policies affect access to public lands for mineral exploration and 

other uses? 
Scoping Report Chapter 3 

Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 25 

2. Will vehicle traffic for activities other than oil and gas development be addressed in the RMP 

amendments? 

Vegetation 

1. How will the RMP amendments address vegetation treatments? 

2. Vegetation treatment methods should be carefully considered before being incorporated into the 

RMP amendments. 

3. Will the proliferation of invasive plant species from surface disturbing activities, such as 

livestock and mineral development, be considered in the RMP amendments? 

Wildland Fire Management 

1. The use of prescribed fire use should be addressed in the RMP amendments. 

 
Chapter 3 Scoping Report 

26 Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 

This page intentionally left blank 
Scoping Report Chapter 4 

Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 27 

CHAPTER 4 ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE 

RMP AMENDMENTS/EIS 

Three issues were raised during scoping that are outside the scope of the purpose and need for the RMP 

amendment/EIS, and therefore will not be considered in the planning process. There are two justifications 

for removing these issues from consideration: 

1. The issue is beyond the scope of the planning effort, or the issue is addressed through 

implementation/site-specific planning actions. 

2. The BLM does not have authority to resolve the issue. 

Issues in this chapter are grouped by the appropriate justification, organized by comment category. 

JUSTIFICATION 1 

An issue is not germane to the planning process if it is beyond the scope of a particular planning effort, or 

if it involves a matter normally addressed in plan implementation. Issues that are not germane to the 

planning process will not be considered as scoping issues but treated as comments. 

General (Process/Policy) 

1. The three other RMP revisions should also include the new policies in their documents. 

The focus of this planning effort is to amend the Casper, Green River, Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, 

and Rawlins RMPs. The Wyoming RMP revision efforts that are currently underway will address the 

Wyoming sage-grouse policy separately from this amendment effort. 

Livestock Grazing 

1. Will cumulative impacts of oil and gas development be considered in issuing grazing permit 

renewals? 

Issuing grazing permit renewals are not planning-level actions and are more appropriately addressed 

during implementation-level planning. Issuing grazing permits is outside the scope of the planning effort, 

which is to incorporate and analyze sage-grouse policy for six existing RMPs. Cumulative impacts from 

oil and gas development and other management actions will be considered in the RMP amendments. 

JUSTIFICATION 2 

BLM does not have the authority to resolve the issue. BLM is granted certain authorities through federal 

law which are implemented by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 

Livestock Grazing 

1. BLM should ensure the continuation of livestock grazing on private lands. 
Chapter 4 Scoping Report 

28 Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 

BLM does not have any authority or jurisdiction over private lands. BLM only has authority of public 

lands and subsurface mineral estate. This issue is beyond BLM’s mission and will not be addressed in the 

RMP amendments. 
Scoping Report Chapter 5 

Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 29 

CHAPTER 5 DRAFT PLANNING CRITERIA 

Planning criteria are the constraints or ground rules that are developed to guide and direct the planning 

amendment. Planning criteria are based on laws and regulations, guidance provided by the BLM 

Wyoming State Director, results of consultation and coordination with the public, other agencies and 

governmental entities, and Indian tribes; analysis of information pertinent to the planning area, public 

input, and professional judgment. The planning criteria focus on the development of management options 

and alternatives, analysis of the related effects, and selection of the Preferred Alternative and the 

Proposed RMP amendment. Additional planning criteria may be identified as the planning process 

progresses. Preliminary planning criteria include the following: 

1. The amendment will be in compliance with FLPMA and all other applicable laws, regulations, 

and policies. 

2. Impacts from the preferred alternative will be analyzed in accordance with regulations at 43 CFR 

1610 and 40 CFR 1500. 

3. Lands covered in the RMP amendment will be public land managed by BLM within the 

designated planning areas. No decisions will be made relative to non-BLM administered lands. 

4. For program specific guidance of land use planning level decisions, the process will follow the 

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

5. Broad-based public participation will be an integral part of the planning process. 

6. Decisions in the plan will strive to be compatible with the 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 law and regulations applicable to public lands. 

7. The RMP amendments will recognize the State’s responsibility and authority to manage wildlife. 

BLM will consult with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

8. The RMP amendments will recognize valid existing rights. 

9. The RMP amendments will incorporate management decisions brought forward from existing 

planning documents whenever possible. 

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

other interested groups, agencies, and individuals. 

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

resource management issues and management concerns. 

12. GIS and metadata information will meet Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) standards, 

as required by Executive Order 12906. All other applicable BLM data standards will be 

followed. 

13. The planning process will involve American Indian Tribal governments and will provide 

strategies for the protection of recognized traditional uses. 
Chapter 5 Scoping Report 

30 Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 

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

technology, and inventory and monitoring information. 

15. The RMP amendment may include adaptive management criteria and protocol to address with 

future issues. 

16. The planning process may use mitigation to develop management options and alternatives. NEPA 

will analyze the impacts, and is part of the planning criteria for developing the options and 

alternatives and for determining mitigation requirements. 
Scoping Report Chapter 6 

Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 31 

CHAPTER 6 DATA SUMMARY/DATA GAPS 

The Preparation Plan for the Sage-grouse RMP Amendments, Section D (Data and GIS Needs) discloses 

the data needed for development of the RMP amendments and EIS, and identifies gaps in the data that 

may need to be addressed. Some data gaps may persist throughout development of the RMP amendments, 

as specific inventories may not be conducted before they would be used for alternatives development or 

analysis. 

During the scoping period, individuals, organizations, and agencies were encouraged to provide BLM 

with applicable data and/or identify data gaps that could assist in the development of alternatives or 

analysis of environmental consequences. However, no additional data gaps were identified beyond those 

identified in the Preparation Plan for the Sage-grouse RMP Amendments. Data and information provided 

during the public scoping period is listed in Table 5. 

Table 5: Data and Information Submitted During the Scoping Period 

Data/Information Title Author/Preparer 

Data/Information 

Type 

Guidelines to Manage Sage-grouse Populations 

and Their Habitats John W. Connelly, et. al. Article 

A Framework to Assist in Making Sensitive Species 

Habitat Assessments for BLM-Administered Public 

Lands in Idaho BLM, Idaho Gov. Document 

An Inexpensive Opportunity to Reduce the Hazard 

to Greater Sage Grouse and Lesser Prairie 

Chickens From Fencing Environmental Defense Fund Article 

Miles of BLM Fencing Constructed by State and 

Year BLM Annual Report Table 

Miles of USDA-Funded Fencing During 2005 - 

2008 in Counties Where Sage Grouse or Lesser 

Prairie Chickens Live 

USDA's Performance Results 

System Table 

Thresholds and Time Lags in Effects of Energy 

Development on Greater Sage-Grouse Populations Seth M. Harju, et. al. Article 

Are Wyoming Range Practices Working at Crosspurposes with Wildlife Habitat Goals? Environmental Defense Fund Article 

Audubon Wyoming's Greater Sage-grouse 

Suggested Mineral Development Mitigation 

Measures Audubon Wyoming Article 

Effect of Imazapic on Cheatgrass and Native Plants 

in Wyoming Big Sagebrush Restoration for 

Gunnison Sage-grouse William L. Baker Article 

Multi-state Sage-grouse Coordination and 

Research-based Recommendations Wyoming Game and Fish Memorandum 

Big Horn Basin Greater Sage-grouse Habitat 

Effectiveness Modeling Biodiversity Conservation Alliance Article 

Influence of Behavior on Bird Mortality in Wind 

Energy Developments K. Shawn Smallwood, et. al. Article 

Bureau of Land Management National SageGrouse Habitat Conservation Strategy, 1.3.1 Department of Interior Guidance Strategy 
Chapter 6 Scoping Report 

32 Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 

Data/Information Title Author/Preparer 

Data/Information 

Type 

Habitat Restoration for Gunnison and Greater 

Sage-grouse BLM, Gunnison Literature Review 

Bureau of Land Management National SageGrouse Habitat Conservation Strategy, 1.4.1 Department of Interior Guidance Strategy 

Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Guidelines for 

Wyoming Joe Bohne, WGFD, et. al. Gov. Document 

Management Considerations for Sagebrush in the 

Western United States: A Selective Summary of 

Current Information about the Ecology and Biology 

of Woody North American Sagebrush Taxa BLM Gov. Document 

A Blueprint for Sage-grouse Conservation and 

Recovery Clait E. Braun, Ph.D. Article 

Seasonal Habitat Requirements for Sage-Grouse: 

Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter Clait E. Braun, Ph.D., et. Al Article 

Causes and patterns of mortality in lesser prairiechickens Tympanuchus pallidicinctus and 

implications for management Donald H.Wolfe, et. al. Article 

Effects of Environmental Factors on Incubation 

Patterns of Greater Sage-grouse 

Peter S. Coates and David J. 

Delehanty Article 

Predators of Greater Sage-Grouse nests identified 

by video monitoring 

Peter S. Coates, John W. Connelly, 

and David J. Delehanty Article 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations 

and their habitats 

John W. Connelly, Michael A. 

Schroeder, Alan R. Sands, and Clait 

E. Braun Article 

Setting the Record Straight: A Response to “SageGrouse at the Crossroads” J. W. Connelly, C. E. Braun, M. A. 

Schroeder, and C. A. Hagen Article 

Energy Development and Conservation Tradeoffs: 

Systematic Planning for Sage-grouse in their 

Eastern Range Kevin E. Doherty, et. al. Article 

Greater Sage-grouse Winter Habitat Selection and 

Energy Development Kevin E. Doherty, et. al. Article 

Don’t Fence Them In: For prairie-chickens, 

airspace is habitat, too Donald Wolfe Article 

Ecology and management of sage-grouse and 

sage-grouse habitat John A. Crawford, et. al. Synthesis Paper 

Effects of Livestock Grazing on Neotropical 

Migratory Landbirds In Western North America Carl E. Bock, et. al. Article 

Fence Marking to Reduce Greater Sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) Collisions and 

Mortality near Farson, Wyoming – Summary of 

Interim Results 

Tom Christiansen, Wyoming Game 

and Fish Article 

Food Habits of Juvenile Sage-grouse Donald E. Klebenow Article 

Evaluating Greater Sage-grouse Brood Habitat 

Using Human-imprinted Chicks 

Sherri Lynn Huwer, Department of 

Fishery and Wildlife Biology Thesis 

Synthesis of Livestock Grazing Management 

Literature Addressing Grazing Management for 

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat in the Wyoming Article 
Scoping Report Chapter 6 

Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 33 

Data/Information Title Author/Preparer 

Data/Information 

Type 

Basin - Southern Rocky Mountains Ecoregions 

BLM Review of Livestock Grazing Management 

Literature Addressing Grazing Management for 

Sage-Grouse Habitat Article 

Reducing Grouse Collision Mortality by Marking 

Fences (Oklahoma) Donald H. Wolfe Article 

Newsletter of the Grouse Group of the IUCN/SSCWPA Galliformes Specialist Group Article 

Yearling Greater Sage-Grouse Response to 

Energy Development in Wyoming Matthew J. Holloran, et. al. Article 

Impact of Wind Energy and Related Human 

Activities on Grassland and Shrub-steppe Birds 

Prepare for the National Wind 

Coordinating Collaborative by the 

Ornithological Council Literature Review 

Influences of Livestock Grazing on Sage-grouse 

Habitat Jeffrey L. Beck and Dean L. Mitchell Article 

Fire and Restoration of Sagebrush Ecosystems William L. Baker Article 

Habitat, Topographical, and Geographical 

Components Structuring Shrubsteppe Bird 

Communities Steven T. Knick, et. al. Article 

Greater Sage-grouse Population Response to 

Natural Gas Field Development in Western 

Wyoming Matthew J. Holloran Article 

Montana Fish, Wildlife @ Parks: Sagebrush 

Bulletin 

http://fwp.mt.gov/insidefwp/fwplibrar

y/sagebrushbulletin.asp Website 

Bureau of Land Management National SageGrouse Habitat Conservation Strategy U.S. Department of Interior Article 

Sage-grouse Population Response to Coal-bed 

Natural Gas Development in the Powder River 

Basin: Interim Progress Report on Region-wide 

Lek-count Analysis Dr. David E. Naugle, et. al. Article 

West Nile virus: pending crisis for greater sagegrouse Dr. David E. Naugle, et. al. Article 

Greater Sage-grouse Nesting Habitat Selection and 

Success in Wyoming Matthew J. Holloran, et. al. Article 

Energy and Infrastructure Development Guidelines 

to Conserve Greater Sage-grouse Populations and 

their Habitats in Nevada 

Nevada Governor’s Sage-grouse 

Conservation Team Article 

Mapping Oil and Gas Development Potential in the 

US Intermountain West and Estimating Impacts to 

Species Holly E. Copeland, et. al. Article 

Exotic plants increase and native plants decrease 

with loss of foundation species in sagebrush steppe Janet S. Preve ́y, et. al. Article 

Loss of foundation species increases population 

growth of exotic forbs in sagebrush steppe Janet S. Preve ́y, et. al. Article 
Chapter 6 Scoping Report 

34 Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 

Data/Information Title Author/Preparer 

Data/Information 

Type 

Range-wide patterns of greater sage-grouse 

persistence Cameron L. Aldridge, et. al. Article 

Nest Predation of Greater Sage-Grouse in Relation 

to Microhabitat Factors and Predators 

Peter S. Coates and David J. 

Delehanty Article 

Sage Grouse Ecology and Management in 

Northern Utah Sagebrush Steppe: A Deseret Land 

and Livestock Wildlife Research Report, 2002 R. E. Danvir Article 

Survival of Greater Sage-Grouse Chicks and 

Broods in the Northern Great Basin 

Michael A. Gregg and John A. 

Crawford Article 

Big Sagebrush Shrub-steppe Post-fire Succession 

in Southwest Montana 

Peter Lesica, Stephen V. Cooper 

and Greg Kudray Article 

Recovery of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Features in Wyoming Big Sagebrush following 

Prescribed Fire 

Jeffrey L. Beck, John W. Connelly, 

and Kerry P. Reese Article 

Post-fire Recovery of Wyoming Big Sagebrush 

Shrub-steppe in Central and Southeast Montana 

Stephen V. Cooper, Peter Lesica 

and Gregory M. Kudray Article 

Sage-grouse and Indirect Interactions: Potential 

Implications of Coyote Control on Sage-grouse 

Populations 

Eduardo T. Mezquida, Steven J. 

Slater, and Craig W. Benkman Article 

Recovery of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Features in Wyoming Big Sagebrush Following 

Prescribed Fire 

Jeffrey L. Beck, John W. Connelly, 

and Kerry P. Reese Article 

Prescribed Fire as a Management Tool in Xeric 

Sagebrush Ecosystems: Is It Worth the Risk to 

Sage-grouse? 

A White Paper prepared by the 

Sage and Columbian Sharp-tailed 

Grouse Technical Committee for the 

Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies Article 

Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse on Public 

Lands in the Western U.S.: Implications of 

Recovery and Management Policies 

Carl L. Wambolt, Policy Analysis 

Center for Western Public Lands Article 

Landscape-scale Factors Affecting Population 

Dynamics of Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) in North-Central Montana, 2001-

2004 Brendan James Moynahan Dissertation 

Recovery of Big Sagebrush Communities After 

Burning in Southwestern Montana C.L. Wambolt, et. al. Article 

Sagebrush in Western North America: Habitats and 

Species in Jeopardy Pacific Northwest Research Station Article 

Teetering on the Edge or Too Late? Conservation 

and Research Issues for Avifauna of Sagebrush 

Habitats Steven T. Knick, et. al. Article 

Thresholds and Time Lags in Effects of Energy 

Development on Greater Sage- Grouse 

Populations Seth M. Harju, et. al. Article 

Effects of Wind Turbines on Upland Nesting Birds 

in Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands 

Krecia L. Leddy, Kenneth E. 

Higgins, and David E. Naugle Article 
Scoping Report Chapter 6 

Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 35 

Data/Information Title Author/Preparer 

Data/Information 

Type 

Greater Sage-Grouse - Interim Status Update - 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mountain-Prairie 

Region Wyoming Ecological Services Office 

October 31, 2008 

http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/birds/sagegrouse/ 

http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/birds/sagegrouse/GS

G_II_ISU_11-5-08.pdf Article 

Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Status Update 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mountain-Prairie Region Wyoming 

Ecological Services Office Article 

greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

Ecological Integrity Table1 Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Table 

Wildlife Integrity Tables Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources / The Nature Conservancy Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Article 

Greater Sage-grouse Population Response to 

Energy Development and Habitat Loss Brett L. Walker, et. al. Article 

Oil and Gas Development Density in Wyoming Map 

A Framework to Assist in Making Greater SageGrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Habitat 

Assessments for BLM-Administered Public Lands 

in Wyoming 

U. S. Bureau of Land Management, 

Wyoming Article 

Instruction Memorandum No. WY-2001-047 BLM, Wyoming IM 

Instruction Memorandum No. WY-2001-047, 

Change 1 BLM, Wyoming IM 

 
Chapter 6 Scoping Report 

36 Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 

This page intentionally left blank 
Scoping Report Chapter 7 

Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 37 

CHAPTER 7 WYOMING SAGE-GROUSE RMP 

AMENDMENTS/EIS PLANNING SCHEDULE 

The Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP amendment interdisciplinary (ID) team will use the data collected 

during the scoping process and issues identified in this report to develop management decisions and 

generate a range of management alternatives. Following alternatives development, the ID team will 

evaluate the potential environmental consequences of implementing each of the alternatives and select the 

preferred alternative. The BLM will issue the Draft RMP Amendments/EIS, which will be followed by a 

90-day public comment period. BLM will review the public input on the draft document, make any 

needed revisions, and issue the Proposed RMP Amendments/Final EIS. Following a 30-day protest period 

and 60-day Governor’s consistency review, the BLM will resolve any protests and sign a Record of 

Decision (ROD) and issue the Approved RMP Amendments. Figure 4 presents the general planning 

schedule for the RMP Amendments/EIS, including opportunities for public involvement. 

Figure 4. Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP amendment/EIS Planning Schedule 

 
Chapter 7 Scoping Report 

38 Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP Amendments 

This page intentionally left blank