May 2015 Wyoming GRSG Proposed LUPA/Final EIS ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 INTRODUCTION

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) directs the 

United States (US) Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) to develop and periodically revise or amend its resource 

management plans (RMPs), which guide management of BLM-administered lands. 

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) directs the US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) to develop and 

periodically revise or amend its land and resource management plans (LRMPs), 

which guide management of National Forest System lands. These two agencies’ 

plans will be referred to generically as land use plans (LUPs) throughout the 

remainder of this document. 

The BLM and Forest Service Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Proposed 

Plan provides a layered management approach that offers the highest level of 

protection for GRSG in the most valuable habitat. Land use allocations in the 

Proposed Plan would limit or eliminate new surface disturbance in Priority 

Habitat Management Areas (PHMA), while minimizing disturbance in General 

Habitat Management Areas (GHMA).1 In addition to establishing protective land 

use allocations, the Proposed Plan would implement a suite of management 

tools, such as disturbance limits, GRSG habitat objectives and monitoring, 

mitigation approaches, adaptive management triggers and responses, and other 

protective measures throughout the range. These overlapping and reinforcing 

conservation measures will work in concert to improve and restore GRSG 

habitat condition and provide consistency in how the BLM and Forest Service 

will manage activities in GRSG habitat in the planning area. 

1

In the Proposed LUPA and Final EIS, GRSG habitat nomenclature has been changed from Core Areas to Priority 

Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) and Non-Core Sage Grouse Habitat to General Habitat Management Areas 

(GHMA). 
Executive Summary 

ES-2 Wyoming GRSG Proposed LUPA/Final EIS May 2015 

ES.1.1 Rationale for the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy and Land Use 

Plan Amendment 

This land use plan amendment is the result of the March 2010 US Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) 12-Month Finding for Petitions to List the GRSG 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered (75 Federal Register 

13910, March 23, 2010). In that finding, the USFWS concluded that GRSG was 

“warranted, but precluded” for listing as a threatened or endangered species. A 

“warranted, but precluded” determination is one of three results that may 

occur after a petition is filed by the public to list a species under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). This finding indicates that immediate publication of a 

proposed rule to list the species is precluded by higher-priority listing proposals; 

that is, a species should be listed based on the available science, but listing other 

species takes priority because they are more in need of protection. 

The USFWS reviewed the status of and threats to the GRSG in relation to the 

five listing factors provided in Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Of the five listing 

factors reviewed, the USFWS determined that Factor A, “the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range of 

the GRSG,” and Factor D, “the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,” 

posed “a significant threat to the GRSG now and in the foreseeable future” (75 

Federal Register 13910, March 23, 2010). The USFWS identified the principal 

regulatory mechanisms for the BLM and Forest Service as conservation 

measures in LUPs. 

The Wyoming GRSG Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA) is one of the 15 LUP

revisions and amendments and environmental impact statements being prepared 

by the BLM and Forest Service as part of the National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Planning Strategy (BLM 2011).2 These documents provide a set of management 

alternatives focused on specific conservation measures across the range of the 

GRSG (see Figure ES-1, Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Boundaries).

Science-based decision making and collaboration with state and local partners 

are fundamental to the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy. The 15 

GRSG LUP/EISs address threats to GRSG identified by state fish and wildlife 

agencies, the BLM National Technical Team, and the USFWS in the context of 

its listing decision and the Conservation Objectives Team (COT) report. The 

COT report was prepared by wildlife biologists from state and federal agencies 

and provides a blueprint for the overall conservation approach set forth in the 

BLM and Forest Service GRSG LUP/EISs (USFWS 2013).3 Where consistent 

with conservation objectives, the GRSG LUP/EISs adopt unique state- and 

stakeholder-developed approaches and priorities. Additional science-based 

2

 BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2011. Instruction Memorandum 2012-044, 

BLM National. Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy. Washington, DC. December 27, 2011. 

3

 USFWS (US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. USFWS, Denver, CO. February 2013. 
Executive Summary 

May 2015 Wyoming GRSG Proposed LUPA/Final EIS ES-3 

reviews by the US Geological Survey and related scientific literature provided 

further guidance on specific issues that arose in developing the final BLM and 

Forest Service GRSG LUP/EISs. In addition, regular meetings with the Western 

Governors Association Sage-Grouse Task Force provided additional 

opportunities for coordination with member states.4

Figure ES-1

ES.1.2 Description of the Planning Area and Habitat Management Areas 

The planning area is the geographic area within which the BLM and Forest 

Service will make decisions during this planning effort. The planning area 

boundary includes all lands regardless of jurisdiction. The Wyoming GRSG 

LUPA planning area covers 38,854,460 acres of federal, state, and private lands 

in Albany, Campbell, Carbon, Converse, Crook, Fremont, Goshen, Laramie, 

Lincoln, Natrona, Niobrara, Platte, Sublette, Sweetwater, Teton, Uinta, and 

Weston counties in Wyoming. Of the total area, 15.8 million acres are BLMadministered and National Forest System federal surface/federal mineral estate 

4

 The Western Governors Association Sage-Grouse Task Force works to identify and implement high priority 

conservation actions and integrate ongoing actions necessary to preclude the need for the GRSG to be listed 

under the ESA. The Task Force includes designees from the 11 western states where GRSG is found as well as 

representatives from USFWS, BLM, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Forest Service, United States 

Geological Survey, and Department of the Interior. 
Executive Summary 

ES-4 Wyoming GRSG Proposed LUPA/Final EIS May 2015 

lands, and an additional 6.5 million acres are non-federal surface/federal mineral 

estate to be covered by LUPA decisions. 

While the planning area consists of all lands regardless of ownership, decisions 

resulting from the Wyoming GRSG LUPA/EIS would apply only to BLMadministered and National Forest System lands, including surface and split-estate 

lands with BLM-administered subsurface mineral rights. Chapter 3, Affected 

Environment, describes the current resource and resource use conditions in the 

planning area. 

GRSG habitat on BLM-administered and National Forest System lands in the 

decision area consists of lands allocated as PHMA and GHMA (Figure ES-2,

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas – Wyoming GRGS LUPA/EIS 

and Table ES-1, Habitat Management Areas in the Wyoming GRSG Planning 

Area). PHMA and GHMA are defined as follows: 

 PHMA (4,894,900 acres): BLM-administered and National Forest

System lands identified as having the highest value to maintaining

sustainable GRSG populations. The boundaries and management

strategies for PHMA are derived from and generally follow the Core

Area boundaries identified in the Draft LUPA/EIS. PHMA was

identified in coordination with the State of Wyoming. Areas of

PHMA largely coincide with areas identified as Priority Areas for

Conservation in the COT report.

 GHMA (5,951,300 acres): BLM-administered and National Forest

System lands that require some special management to sustain

GRSG populations, but that are not as important as PHMA. GHMA

was identified in coordination with the State of Wyoming.

The planning area includes other BLM-administered and National Forest System 

lands that are not allocated as habitat management areas for GRSG. These lands 

would be managed according to the existing, underlying land use plan for the 

area. 

The Proposed Plan also identifies specific Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs) 

(1,196,000 acres), which are a subset of PHMA. The SFAs were derived from 

GRSG “stronghold” areas described in a USFWS memorandum to the BLM and 

Forest Service titled Greater Sage-Grouse: Additional Recommendations to Refine 

Land Use Allocations in Highly Important Landscapes (USFWS 2014). The 

memorandum and associated maps provided by the USFWS identify areas that 

represent recognized “strongholds” for GRSG that have been noted and 

referenced as having the highest densities of GRSG and other criteria important 

for the persistence of the species. 
Wyoming GRSG Proposed LUPA/Final EIS 

Figure ES-2 

ES-5 
Executive Summary 

ES-6 Wyoming GRSG Proposed LUPA/Final EIS May 2015

Table ES-1

Habitat Management Areas in the Wyoming GRSG Planning Area

Habitat Management Area

Acres of BLMadministered/National 

Forest System Lands

Percent of BLMadministered/National 

Forest System Lands in 

Planning Area

PHMA 4,894,900 30

GHMA 5,951,300 37

Other BLM-administered/

National Forest System lands 5,308,600 33

ES.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose for the LUPA is to identify and incorporate appropriate 

conservation measures to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat by 

reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to that habitat. The major threats 

identified by the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision that apply to the 

Wyoming Sub-region include: 

 Wildfire – loss of large areas of GRSG habitat due to wildfire.

 Invasive Species – conversion of GRSG habitat to invasive annual

grass (e.g., cheatgrass) dominated plant communities.

 Conifer Invasion – encroachment of pinyon and/or juniper into

GRSG habitat.

 Infrastructure – fragmentation of GRSG habitat due to human

development activities such as rights-of-way (ROWs) and renewable

energy development.

 Grazing – loss of habitat components due to improper livestock,

wild horse and burro, and large wildlife use.

 Hard Rock Mining – fragmentation of GRSG habitat due to mineral

exploration and development.

 Oil and Gas Development – fragmentation of GRSG habitat due to

mineral exploration and development.

 Human Uses – fragmentation of GRSG habitat and/or modification

of GRSG behavior.

This LUPA with associated EIS is needed to respond to the USFWS’s March 

2010 “warranted, but precluded” ESA listing petition decision (75 Federal 

Register 13910, March 23, 2010). The USFWS identified inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms as a significant factor in its finding on the petition to list the GRSG. 

In its listing decision, the USFWS noted that changes in management of GRSG 

habitats are necessary to avoid the continued decline of GRSG populations. 

Changes in land allocations and conservation measures in the BLM and Forest 
Executive Summary 

May 2015 Wyoming GRSG Proposed LUPA/Final EIS ES-7 

Service LUPs provide a means to implement regulatory mechanisms to address 

the inadequacy identified by USFWS. 

ES.3 PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed federal action is the Proposed Plan, which identifies resource 

management actions in accordance with the multiple-use and sustained-yield 

mandates of FLPMA and the requirements in NFMA. The proposed action is 

also intended to provide a consistent framework for managing GRSG and its 

habitat on BLM-administered and National Forest System lands. The 

alternatives, including the Proposed Plan, comprise desired future outcomes and 

a range of management actions, allowable uses, and land use allocations that 

guide management on BLM-administered and National Forest System lands. The 

Proposed Plan Amendment (see Section ES.6, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management Proposed Plan and Environmental Effects), represents the agencies’ 

approach for addressing the purpose and need. 

ES.4 DEVELOPMENT OF THE LUPA/EIS 

ES.4.1 Scoping 

The BLM and Forest Service initiated the LUPA and EIS process on May 28, 

2010, with the publication in the Federal Register of a Notice of Intent to begin a 

planning effort for the Casper, Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins, and 

Rock Springs RMPs. A second NOI on December 9, 2011 opened the second 

public scoping period for the addition of the National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Planning Strategy to the amendment effort and the addition of the Forest 

Service to the planning process to amend the LRMPs for the Bridger-Teton 

National Forest, Medicine Bow National Forest, and Thunder Basin National 

Grassland Planning Units. 

Publication of the NOIs initiated the scoping process and invited affected and 

interested agencies, organizations, and the general public to participate in 

determining the scope and issues to be addressed by alternatives and analyses in 

the EIS. Six public scoping meetings were conducted during the first scoping 

period in June 2010. Five additional public scoping meetings were held during 

the second scoping period in early 2012. The scoping meetings provided the 

public with an opportunity to learn and ask questions about the project and the 

planning process and to submit their issues and concerns to the BLM and Forest 

Service. In addition to members of the BLM and Forest Service Interdisciplinary 

Team, about 140 people attended the 11 scoping meetings. The BLM and Forest 

Service collected comments from the public during the scoping meetings and 

throughout the scoping periods.

The final Scoping Summary Report, available online at 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse.html, prepared in conjunction 

with all the GRSG LUPAs, summarizes the scoping and issue-identification 

process and describes 13 broad issue categories identified during the scoping 

process. 
Executive Summary 

ES-8 Wyoming GRSG Proposed LUPA/Final EIS May 2015 

ES.4.2 Cooperating Agency Collaboration 

Throughout this planning effort, the BLM and Forest Service have engaged with 

multiple federal, state, and local government agencies and Native American 

tribes. Consistent with the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) and 

FLPMA and the Forest Service Manual 1920 and NFMA, cooperating agencies 

share knowledge and resources to achieve desired outcomes for public lands 

and communities within statutory and regulatory frameworks. A total of 46 

agencies and tribes agreed to participate as cooperating agencies in the LUPA 

process. The BLM and Forest Service met with and provided relevant 

information to cooperating agencies throughout the planning process. For more 

information, see Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination. 

ES.4.3 Development of the Draft LUPA/EIS 

Development of Management Alternatives 

In accordance with NEPA and the CEQ implementing regulations (40 CFR 

1500), the planning team considered public input and developed a reasonable 

range of alternatives for the Draft LUPA/EIS. 

The planning team developed five unique alternatives, including one No Action 

Alternative and four action alternatives, which were subsequently analyzed in 

the Draft LUPA/EIS. Each of the preliminary action alternatives was designed to: 

 Address the 13 range-wide GRSG planning issues

 Address the 26 planning issues raised specifically in scoping for this

effort

 Fulfill the purpose and need for the LUPA

 Meet the multiple-use and sustained-yield mandates of FLPMA and

requirements in NFMA

 Respond to USFWS-identified issues and threats to GRSG and its

habitat, including specific threats identified in the COT report

Collectively, the four action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, D, and E) analyzed in 

the Draft LUPA/EIS offered a range of possible management approaches for 

responding to the purpose and need as well as the planning issues and concerns 

identified through public scoping. While the overarching goal of the long-term 

conservation of GRSG and its habitat is the same across alternatives, each 

alternative contains a discrete set of objectives and management actions, which 

if selected as the final plan, would constitute a unique LUPA. 

Publication of Draft LUPA/EIS 

Public Comment Period 

The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Wyoming GRSG Draft LUPA/EIS was 

published in the Federal Register on December 27, 2013, initiating the 90-day 

public comment period. The comment period ended on March 27, 2014. The 
Executive Summary 

May 2015 Wyoming GRSG Proposed LUPA/Final EIS ES-9 

BLM and Forest Service held six public meetings in February 2014. Written 

public comments were reviewed and considered by the BLM and Forest Service. 

Comment Analysis 

During the public comment periods, the BLM and Forest Service received 

thousands of written comments by mail, email, and submissions at the public 

meetings. Comments covered a wide spectrum of thoughts, opinions, ideas, and 

concerns. Upon receipt, the BLM and Forest Service reviewed the comments, 

grouped similar substantive comments under an appropriate topic heading, and 

evaluated and wrote summary responses addressing the comment topics. The 

response indicated whether or not the commenters’ points would result in new 

information or changes being included in the Final LUPA/EIS. In many 

circumstances, public comments prompted changes to the Draft LUPA/EIS. 

Appendix O provides a detailed description of the comment analysis 

methodology and an overview of the public comments received. 

ES.5 LUPA/EIS ALTERNATIVES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

ES.5.1 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, neither the BLM nor the Forest Service would develop 

new management actions to protect GRSG habitat. Management of existing 

threats to GRSG populations and habitat, such as infrastructure, invasive 

species, grazing, mineral development, and wildfire, would continue in 

accordance with existing land use planning documents. 

ES.5.2 Alternative B 

Alternative B is based on the conservation measures developed by the NTT 

planning effort in IM No. WO-2012-044. As directed in the IM, the conservation 

measures developed by the NTT must be considered and analyzed, as 

appropriate, through the land use planning process and NEPA by all BLM state 

and field offices that contain occupied GRSG habitat. Under this alternative, a 

surface disturbance cap of 3 percent per 640 acres is considered within GRSG 

priority habitat. 

All GRSG priority habitat areas would be designated as GRSG conservation 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)/Special Interest Areas (SIAs). 

Allotments not meeting standards due to livestock grazing in GRSG priority 

habitat would incorporate a light grazing management strategy utilizing a 20 to 

30 percent forage allocation for livestock. 

Alternative B would reduce surface disturbance and disruptive activities in 

priority GRSG habitat. The protection of priority sagebrush habitat could 

provide GRSG the undisturbed, contiguous habitat necessary for the species to 

maintain or improve population numbers. Management would close GRSG 

priority habitat to oil, gas, and CBNG leasing, wind energy, and other minerals. 

Additional management for livestock grazing could allow for greater 

achievement of Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health or the Forest Service 
Executive Summary 

ES-10 Wyoming GRSG Proposed LUPA/Final EIS May 2015 

equivalent and provide improved habitat for special status species, especially 

those that inhabit riparian and wetland areas. Larger lek buffers and restrictions 

to the density of disturbance for surface-disturbing activities to protect GRSG 

priority habitat would protect more land, especially sagebrush habitat, from 

surface-disturbing activities, habitat loss, and fragmentation. 

ES.5.3 Alternative C 

Alternative C is the most restrictive approach to GRSG conservation. This 

alternative emphasizes improvement and protection of habitat for GRSG and is 

applied to all occupied GRSG habitat. Alternative C would limit commodity 

development in areas of occupied GRSG habitat and would close or designate 

portions of the planning area to some land uses. Under this alternative, a surface 

disturbance cap of 3 percent per 640 acres is considered within GRSG priority 

habitat. 

All GRSG priority habitat areas and Audubon Important Bird Areas would be 

designated as GRSG conservation ACECs/SIAs. Livestock grazing would be 

prohibited within GRSG priority habitat. 

Alternative C would reduce surface disturbance and disruptive activities in 

priority GRSG habitat, and in some cases general habitat (oil, gas, CBNG, 

ROWs, wind). The protection of priority and general sagebrush habitat could 

provide GRSG the largest area of undisturbed, contiguous habitat necessary for 

the species to maintain or improve population numbers. Closing priority habitat 

to livestock grazing could allow for improved habitat. Larger lek buffers and 

restrictions to the density of disturbance for surface-disturbing activities to 

protect GRSG habitat would protect more land, especially sagebrush habitat, 

from surface-disturbing activities, habitat loss, and fragmentation. Overall, 

Alternative C would provide the greatest protection of sagebrush habitat among 

all the alternatives. 

ES.5.4 Alternative D 

This alternative increases the potential for development and resource use, with 

reduced GRSG habitat protections. Protective measures would be applied to 

GRSG habitat. Under this alternative, a surface disturbance cap of 9 percent per 

640 acres is considered within GRSG core habitat. 

Alternative D could have impacts from surface-disturbing activities that are 

similar to Alternative A. In some cases, such as ROWs and wind energy, 

Alternative D protects all core GRSG habitat. Other management could provide 

protection of GRSG core habitat from wind development by reducing habitat 

loss, fragmentation, and direct impacts from wind turbines and overhead 

structures. Impacts from surface-disturbing activities such as livestock grazing 

and other mineral development could lead to loss, alteration, and fragmentation 

of habitat and displacement of GRSG. 
Executive Summary 

May 2015 Wyoming GRSG Proposed LUPA/Final EIS ES-11

ES.5.5 Alternative E (Proposed Plan) 

The Proposed Plan is a variation of the Preferred Alternative analyzed in the 

Draft LUPA/EIS. Alternative E generally increases conservation of physical, 

biological, and heritage and visual resources compared to current management. 

Alternative E also emphasizes moderate constraints on resource uses, while 

applying specific reclamation and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts on 

resource values. Alternative E limits motorized vehicle use to designated roads 

and trails, and vegetation resources would be managed to maintain contiguous 

blocks of native plant communities. Alternative E places additional stipulations 

on oil and gas-related surface disturbances within certain areas. 

Alternative E identifies protective measures for GRSG habitat consistent with 

the State of Wyoming Core Area Strategy. Alternative E generally applies 

greater restrictions on surface disturbance and disruptive activities to protect 

sensitive wildlife habitats, including occupied GRSG leks, than Alternative A. 

Disturbance in PHMA under Alternative E would also be limited to 5 percent, 

subject to valid existing rights. The disturbance cap would apply to all 

anthropogenic disturbances and would be measured at project scales. 

ES.6 GREATER SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PROPOSED PLAN AND

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

In consideration of public comments, best science, cooperating agency 

coordination, and internal review of the Draft LUPA/EIS, the BLM and Forest 

Service developed the Proposed Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Management (Proposed Plan). The Proposed Plan represents the BLM and 

Forest Service’s proposed approach for meeting the purpose and need 

consistent with the agencies’ legal and policy mandates.

The BLM and Forest Service Proposed Plan addresses threats to GRSG and its 

habitat identified by the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision that apply to 

the Wyoming GRSG planning area as well as threats described in the COT 

report. The Proposed Plan seeks to provide greater regulatory certainty for 

management actions intended to conserve the GRSG (see Table ES-2, Key 

Components of the Wyoming GRSG Proposed Plan Addressing COT Report 

Threats). In making its determination of whether the GRSG is warranted to be 

listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, the USFWS will evaluate the 

degree to which the land use planning decisions proposed in this LUPA/EIS 

address threats to GRSG and its habitat. 

The Proposed Plan would maintain and enhance GRSG populations and habitat. 

The Proposed Plan would apply management actions, subject to valid existing 

rights, to other uses and resources, such as: 

 Establishing screening criteria and conditions for new anthropogenic

activities in PHMA and GHMA designed to achieve net conservation

gain
Executive Summary 

ES-12 Wyoming GRSG Proposed LUPA/Final EIS May 2015 

 Providing a framework for prioritizing areas in PHMA and GHMA

for wildfire, invasive annual grass, and conifer treatments

 Reducing habitat disturbance and fragmentation through limitations

on surface-disturbing activities

 Adapting to resource and use changes through monitoring and

adaptive management

The Proposed Plan would also establish screening criteria and conditions for 

new anthropogenic activities to ensure a net conservation gain to GRSG in 

PHMA. The Proposed Plan would reduce habitat disturbance and fragmentation 

through limitations on surface-disturbing activities, while addressing changes in 

resource condition and use through monitoring and adaptive management. 

The Proposed Plan is built upon the foundation for GRSG management 

established by and complementary to the Governor’s Executive Order 2011-05, 

Greater Sage Grouse Core Area Protection (Core Area Strategy) (Wyoming 

Office of the Governor 2011), by establishing similar conservation measures and 

focusing restoration efforts in the same key areas most valuable to the GRSG. 

For a full description of the Proposed Plan, see Chapter 2. 

Table ES-2

Key Components of the Wyoming GRSG Proposed Plan Addressing COT Report Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and its Habitat (from 

COT Report)

Key Component of the Wyoming GRSG Proposed Plan

All Threats  Implement the Adaptive Management Plan, which provides regulatory

assurance that unintended negative impacts to GRSG habitat will be

addressed before consequences become severe or irreversible.

 PHMA: Require and ensure mitigation that provides a net conservation

gain to GRSG.

 Monitor implementation and effectiveness of conservation measures in

GRSG habitats according to the Habitat Assessment Framework.

 Apply Required Design Features (RDF) when authorizing actions in GRSG

habitat. (BLM only)

 Prioritize the leasing and development of fluid mineral resources outside

GRSG habitat. (BLM only)

 Incorporate RDFs as land use plan guidelines. (Forest Service only)

 Work with the operator to locate fluid mineral development outside

GRSG habitat. (Forest Service only)

All development threats, 

including mining, 

infrastructure, and 

energy development

 PHMA: Implement an anthropogenic disturbance cap of 5% at the projectarea scale.

 PHMA: Implement a density cap of an average of 1 energy and mining

facility per 640 acres.

 PHMA: Surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities would be

prohibited on or within a 0.6-mile radius of the perimeter of occupied
Executive Summary 

May 2015 Wyoming GRSG Proposed LUPA/Final EIS ES-13

Table ES-2

Key Components of the Wyoming GRSG Proposed Plan Addressing COT Report Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and its Habitat (from 

COT Report)

Key Component of the Wyoming GRSG Proposed Plan

GRSG leks.

 GHMA: Surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities would be

prohibited on or within a 0.25-mile radius of the perimeter of occupied

GRSG leks.

Energy Development—

Fluid Minerals

 PHMA: Open to fluid mineral leasing subject to No Surface Occupancy

(NSO) stipulation within 0.6 miles of an occupied lek, and Timing

Limitation (TL) stipulation from March 15 to June 30.

 GHMA: Open to fluid mineral leasing subject to NSO within 0.25 miles of

an occupied lek and TL stipulations.

Energy Development—

Wind Energy

 PHMA: Avoidance area (may be available for wind energy development

with special stipulations)

Infrastructure – major 

Rights-of-Way (ROW) 

 PHMA: Avoidance area (may be available for major ROWs with special

stipulations)

Infrastructure – minor 

ROWs

 PHMA: Avoidance area (may be available for minor ROWs with special

stipulations)

Mining—locatable 

minerals

 SFAs: 252,160 acres would be recommended for withdrawal from the

General Mining Act of 1872, subject to valid existing rights. 894,060 acres

would be considered for future recommendation for withdrawal from

mineral entry, based on risk to GRSG and its habitat from conflicting

locatable mineral potential and development.

Mining—coal  PHMA is essential habitat for GRSG for purposes of the suitability criteria

set forth at 43 CFR 3461.5(o)(1).

Livestock Grazing  Prioritize the review and processing of grazing permits/leases in SFAs

followed by PHMA. (BLM only)

 Adjust grazing management to move towards desired habitat conditions

consistent with ecological site capability. (Forest Service only)

 The NEPA analysis for renewals and modifications of grazing

permits/leases will include specific management thresholds, based on the

GRSG Habitat Objectives Table, Land Health Standards, and ecological

site potential, to allow adjustments to grazing that have already been

subjected to NEPA analysis. (BLM only)

 Consider closure of grazing allotments, pastures, or portions of pastures,

or managing the allotment as a forage reserve as opportunities arise under

applicable regulations, where removal of livestock grazing would enhance

the ability to achieve desired habitat conditions. (Forest Service only)

 Prioritize field checks in SFAs followed by PHMA to ensure compliance

with the terms and conditions of grazing permits. (BLM only)

Free-Roaming Equid 

Management

 PHMA: Review and consider amending BLM Herd Management Area Plans

to incorporate GRSG habitat objectives and management considerations

for all BLM herd management areas.
Executive Summary 

ES-14 Wyoming GRSG Proposed LUPA/Final EIS May 2015 

Table ES-2

Key Components of the Wyoming GRSG Proposed Plan Addressing COT Report Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and its Habitat (from 

COT Report)

Key Component of the Wyoming GRSG Proposed Plan

Range Management 

Structures

 Allow range improvements which do not impact GRSG, or which provide

a conservation benefit to GRSG such as fences for protecting important

seasonal habitats.

Recreation  PHMA: Do not construct new recreation facilities.

Fire  PHMA: Fuels treatments would be designed and implemented with an

emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems and enhancing and

protecting future sagebrush ecosystems. (BLM only)

 Protection of GRSG habitat should receive high consideration, along with

other high values, when positioning resources. (Forest Service only)

Nonnative, Invasive 

Plants Species

 Integrated vegetation management would be used to control, suppress,

and eradicate, where possible, noxious and invasive species. Manage weed

treatments to maintain and improve GRSG habitat.

Sagebrush Removal  PHMA: Maintain a minimum of 70 percent of lands capable of producing

sagebrush with 10 to 30 percent sagebrush canopy cover.

 All BLM use authorizations will contain terms and conditions regarding the

actions needed to meet or progress toward meeting the habitat objectives

for GRSG.

Pinyon and/or Juniper 

Expansion

 Remove conifers encroaching into sagebrush habitats, prioritizing

occupied GRSG habitat.

Agricultural Conversion 

and Ex-Urban 

Development

 Retain the majority of PHMA in federal management.

ES.7 SUMMARY

Since the release of the Draft Wyoming GRSG LUPA/EIS, the BLM and Forest 

Service have continued to work closely with a broad range of governmental 

partners, including the United States Department of Agriculture Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, the USFWS and US Geological Survey in DOI, 

Indian tribes, governors, state agencies, and county commissioners. Through this 

cooperation, the BLM and Forest Service have developed the Proposed Plan 

that, in accordance with applicable law, achieves the long-term conservation of 

GRSG and its habitat.. 

Conservation of the GRSG is a large-scale challenge that requires a landscapescale solution that spans 11 western states. The Wyoming GRSG LUPA/EIS 

achieves the consistent, range-wide conservation objectives as outlined below. 

Additionally, the Wyoming GRSG LUPA/EIS aligns with the State of Wyoming’s 

priorities and land management approaches consistent with conservation of 

GRSG. 
Executive Summary 

May 2015 Wyoming GRSG Proposed LUPA/Final EIS ES-15

Minimize additional surface disturbance. The most effective way to 

conserve the GRSG is to protect existing, intact habitat. The BLM and Forest 

Service aim to reduce habitat fragmentation and protect key habitat areas. The 

Wyoming GRSG LUPA/EIS minimizes surface disturbance on over 10 million 

acres of BLM-administered and National Forest System lands by allocating lands 

as PHMA and GHMA with decisions that aim to conserve GRSG habitat. 

Disturbance in PHMA under the Proposed Plan would be limited to 5 percent, 

subject to valid existing rights. The disturbance cap would apply to all 

anthropogenic disturbances and would be measured at project scales. In the 

event disturbance exceeds 5 percent, new authorizations would be subject to 

the disturbance management protocol. 

The BLM and Forest Service also updated the Proposed Plan to reflect new 

GRSG state conservation strategies, including recent State Executive Orders. 

The objectives of these documents are consistent with the State of Wyoming’s 

Core Area Strategy, which is designed to protect GRSG and its habitat within 

core areas using a suite of tools and mechanisms that work in concert to 

conserve GRSG by reducing habitat loss and fragmentation through lek buffers, 

disturbance limits, excluding activities, and a sophisticated mapping utility to 

monitor the amount and density of disturbance. 

Improve habitat condition. While restoring lost sagebrush habitat can be 

very difficult in the short term, particularly in the most arid areas, it is often 

possible to enhance habitat quality through purposeful management. The 

Wyoming GRSG LUPA/EIS commits to management actions that are necessary 

to achieve science-based vegetation and GRSG habitat management objectives 

established in the Proposed Plan. 

For mitigation, the BLM would coordinate with the Wyoming Sage Grouse 

Implementation Team for application of the “avoid, minimize, compensate” 

process to ensure anthropogenic activities result in a net conservation gain for 

GRSG habitat. The Proposed Plan also includes a process for monitoring and 

adapting to changing conditions on the landscape. Using monitoring data for 

population and sagebrush canopy cover, the adaptive management strategy 

would apply more restrictive management where there is a consistent 

downward trend. The cause of the downward trend (e.g., anthropogenic 

disturbance, fire, disease, etc.) would be identified through monitoring data. 

Reduce threat of rangeland fire to sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat.

Rangeland fire can destroy sagebrush habitat and lead to the conversion of 

previously healthy habitat into landscapes dominated by invasive species. The 

Wyoming GRSG LUPA/EIS incorporates Secretarial Order 3336 and sets forth 

protocols to improve the BLM and Forest Service’s ability to protect GRSG 

habitat from damaging wildfire. 
Executive Summary 

ES-16 Wyoming GRSG Proposed LUPA/Final EIS May 2015

The Proposed Plan also incorporates sagebrush ecosystem resistance and 

resilience concepts to prioritize landscape-level habitat restoration, fire 

operations, and post-fire recovery projects. The Proposed Plan would provide 

the planning-level framework for more detailed implementation-level 

assessments that address the threat of fire, invasive annual grasses, and conifer 

encroachment in GRSG habitat throughout the planning area.