Draft EIS Executive Summary 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment i 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION

In March 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published its listing decision for the Greater 

Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as “warranted but precluded” (75 Federal Register 13910, 

March 23, 2010). Inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms in land use plans was identified as a major threat 

in the USFWS’ findings on the petition to list the Greater Sage-Grouse under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). In response to the USFWS’ findings and pending listing decision, the U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

(Forest Service) have prepared the Draft Land Use Plan (LUP) Amendments to analyze the addition of 

Greater Sage-Grouse conservation measures to the existing Resource Management Plans (RMP) for the 

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

the Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) for the Forest Service Bridger-Teton National Forest 

(BTNF), Medicine Bow National Forest (MBNF), and Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG) 

Planning Units. 

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

periodically revise or amend its RMPs, which guide management of BLM-administered lands. The 

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) directs the Forest Service to develop and periodically 

revise or amend its Forest Plans, which guide management of National Forest System Lands. These two 

agencies’ plans, which would be amended by this document, are generically referred to as Land Use Plans 

(LUP) throughout the remainder of this document. The USFWS has identified conservation measures in 

land use plans as the principal regulatory mechanism for protecting Greater Sage-Grouse on BLMadministered lands and National Forest System Lands administered by the Forest Service. Based on the 

identified threats to Greater Sage-Grouse, and the USFWS’s timeline for making a listing decision on this 

species, the BLM and Forest Service need to incorporate objectives and adequate conservation measures 

into land use plans to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse to potentially avoid the need for the USFWS to list 

the species as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The conservation measures include both 

restrictions on land uses and programs that affect Greater Sage-Grouse and measures to reduce the 

impacts of BLM/Forest Service programs or authorized uses. In response to the USFWS’ findings, the 

BLM and Forest Service will evaluate the adequacy of its land use plans and will address, as necessary, 

amendments throughout the range of Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Consistent with national policy, the BLM and Forest Service are preparing several environmental impact 

statements (EIS), with associated LUP amendments or revisions. These documents will address a range of 

alternatives focused on specific conservation measures across the range of the Greater Sage-Grouse. The 

amendments will be coordinated under two administrative planning regions across the entire range of the 

Greater Sage-Grouse. The Rocky Mountain Region and the Great Basin Region boundaries generally 

correspond with the threats identified by the USFWS in the 2010 listing decision, along with the Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Management Zones framework (Stiver et al. 2006). 

The Management Zones reflect ecological and biological issues and similarities. In addition, management 

challenges within Management Zones are comparable, and Greater Sage-Grouse and their habitats are 

likely responding similarly to environmental factors and management actions. The Rocky Mountain 

Region consists of land use plans in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, and in portions of 

Montana and Utah. The Great Basin Region consists of land use plans in California, Nevada, Oregon, 

Idaho, and in portions of Utah and Montana. 
Executive Summary Draft EIS 

ii Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

As identified above, this direction is the result of the March 2010 publication of the USFWS’s 12-Month 

Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or 

Endangered. In this document, the agency concluded that the Greater Sage-Grouse is warranted for listing 

as a threatened or endangered species. The USFWS reviewed the status of and threats to Greater SageGrouse in relation to the five listing factors provided in Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. It determined that 

factor A, “the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range of the 

Greater Sage-Grouse,” and factor D, “the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,” both posed “a 

significant threat to the Greater Sage-Grouse now and in the foreseeable future” (75 Federal Register 

13910, March 23, 2010). These LUP Amendments address both listing factors A and D and will provide 

consistency in managing Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. In the BLM’s Instruction Memorandum 2012-044, 

the BLM’s National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy provides direction for considering 

sage-grouse conservation measures in the land use planning process. 

These LUP Amendments address Greater Sage-Grouse habitat within eastern, western, and southern 

Wyoming. Greater Sage-Grouse habitat is comprised of the following three primary habitat types: 

• Core/Priority Habitat: Areas that have been identified as having the highest conservation value 

to maintaining sustainable Greater Sage-Grouse populations include breeding, nesting, late broodrearing, and winter concentration areas. 

• General Habitat: Areas of seasonal or year-round habitat outside of core/priority habitat. 

• Connectivity Habitat: Areas that have been identified as broader regions of connectivity 

important to facilitate the movement of Greater Sage-Grouse and maintain ecological processes. 

Nationwide, approximately 52% of sagebrush habitat within Greater Sage-Grouse Management Zones is 

on BLM-administered land, and nearly 8% is on National Forest System land. As a result, changes in 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat management on BLM/Forest Service-administered Lands is anticipated to 

have a considerable impact on Greater Sage-Grouse populations and could prevent the species from being 

listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. 

The planning area for the Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments comprise the Wyoming BLM Casper, 

Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins and Rock Springs Field Offices, and the Forest Service BTNF, 

MBNF, and TBNG Planning Units (Map ES-1), and includes all public lands and federal mineral estate 

managed by the BLM and the Forest Service within these areas. The planning area encompasses 

approximately 16 million acres of public surface land administered by the BLM and Forest Service, and 

approximately 23 million acres of federal mineral estate in Albany, Campbell, Carbon, Converse, Crook, 

Fremont, Goshen, Laramie, Lincoln, Natrona, Niobrara, Platte, Sublette, Sweetwater, Teton, Uinta, and 

Weston counties in Wyoming. Of the 23 million acres of federal mineral estate, approximately 7 million 

acres are split estate. Table ES-1 provides a summary of land and mineral ownership and administrative 

jurisdictions within the planning area. Greater Sage-Grouse habitat within the planning area consists of 

approximately 10 million acres of core/priority habitat, 17 million acres of general habitat, and 105,000 

acres of connectivity habitat. 
Draft EIS Executive Summary 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment iii

Table ES-1. Land and Mineral Ownership and Administrative 

Jurisdictions within the Planning Area 

Jurisdiction Acres1

Total land surface area in the planning area (all ownership) 38,854,720

Areas the Wyoming Sage-grouse LUP Amendments decisions will cover:

Federal land/federal minerals215,887,980

Federal land/nonfederal minerals3364,590

Nonfederal land/federal minerals46,443,760

Total BLM-administered federal land surface and National Forest System Lands to 

be covered by LUP decisions 16,249,870

Total federal mineral estate to be covered by LUP decisions 22,964,440

Areas the Wyoming Sage-grouse LUP Amendments decisions will not cover:

Private or state land/private or state minerals515,325,770

1

Because of land surface and mineral ownership overlaps and administrative responsibility overlaps, acreage figures for different 

jurisdictions do not add up to the total acreage. 

2 Where the federal land surface and federal mineral estate are both administered by the BLM or Forest Service, LUP decisions 

would apply to both the land surface and the mineral estate.

3 Where the federal land surface is administered by the BLM or Forest Service, and the minerals are privately or state owned, 

LUP decisions would apply only to BLM/Forest Service-administered federal land surface and only to the extent allowed by law. 

Although surface management decisions may affect the timing and location of development, surface management decisions 

cannot preclude development of the non-federally owned minerals. The LUP decisions for mineral management would not apply 

to the non-federal mineral estate. Anticipated surface and mineral management actions and their direct, indirect, and cumulative 

impacts (cumulative impacts to the extent that they affect resource management decisions) are included/disclosed in the 

analyses.

4 Where the land surface is privately owned or owned by the State of Wyoming, and the minerals are federally owned (i.e., split 

estate), the RMP decisions would apply to BLM-administered federal mineral estate and, to varying degrees, the surface estate. 

RMP decisions would only pertain to the state owned and privately owned land surface to the extent allowed by law and to the 

extent that the impacts were the result of the federal action. BLM would work with the private/state surface owners to honor their 

wishes to the extent allowed by law. Anticipated surface and mineral management actions and their direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts (cumulative impacts to the extent that they affect resource management decisions) are included/disclosed in 

the analyses.

5

The LUP amendments will not include any management decisions that are applicable to areas where the land surface and 

minerals are privately owned or owned by the State of Wyoming. However, anticipated impacts that might affect LUP decisions 

on these lands are included in the cumulative impact analysis.
Executive Summary Draft EIS 

iv Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Map ES-1. Planning Area 
Draft EIS Executive Summary 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment v 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS

The purpose for the LUP amendments is to identify and incorporate appropriate sage-grouse conservation 

measures into the plan. In compliance with IM 2012-044, the measures to be considered include 

appropriate conservation measures developed by the National Technical Team (NTT). The BLM will 

consider such measures in the context of its multiple-use mandate under the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA), and incorporate measures that will help conserve, enhance and/or restore 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat by reducing, eliminating or minimizing threats to that habitat.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Public participation in the land use planning process includes a variety of efforts to identify and address 

public concerns and needs. The public involvement process assists the agencies in broadening the 

information base for decision-making, informing the public about the LUP amendments and the potential 

impacts associated with various management decisions, and ensuring that public needs and viewpoints are 

understood by the agency. Information is provided to the public through meetings, news releases, the 

project website, and newsletters. 

Scoping Process 

The public was provided a scoping period to identify potential issues and concerns associated with the 

LUP amendments. Information obtained by the BLM and Forest Service during public scoping is 

integrated with issues identified by the agencies to form the scope of the EIS. 

Publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register on May 28, 2010, announced the BLM’s 

intention to amend the Casper, Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins and Rock Springs RMPs, and 

served as a call for input and comments for amending the plans. The publication of a second NOI on 

December 9, 2011 opened the second public scoping period and announced the addition of the Forest 

Service to the planning process to amend the LRMPs for the BTNF, MBNF and TBNG Planning Units. 

Scoping Notice 

The first official 60-day scoping period began when the NOI was published in the Federal Register. The 

notice invited the public to participate in the scoping process and requested comments on issues and 

planning criteria related to the BLM RMP amendments. The first scoping period extended from May 28, 

2010 through August 30, 2010. The Scoping Notice also included information regarding the six field 

offices, the reasons for the plan amendments, and how to participate in the scoping process. The 

publication of a second NOI on December 9, 2011 officially started the second public scoping period for 

the addition of the National Sage-Grouse planning strategy to the amendment effort and the amendment 

of the three Forest Service LRMPs. The second public scoping period ended on March 23, 2012. 

Scoping Meetings 

The initial public scoping meetings for the six BLM RMP amendments were held in Pinedale, Kemmerer, 

Rock Springs, Newcastle, Casper, and Rawlins, Wyoming, on August 3, 4, 5, 11, 12 and 13, 2010, 

respectively. During the six scoping meetings, a total of 42 people registered their attendance. The 

meetings were structured in an open-house format, with various information tables representing issues 

such as Greater Sage-Grouse, fish and wildlife habitat, mineral development, and other resource areas. 

Public comments were collected during the scoping meetings and throughout the scoping period through 

mail, e-mail, and the project website. 
Executive Summary Draft EIS 

vi Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comments were categorized by topic for analysis purposes. Special Status Species and general 

(process/policy) were the two categories that received the greatest number of comments. The comments 

in these categories related to incorporation of the Wyoming Sage-grouse Policy or ways to protect sagegrouse and sagebrush habitat. Although fewer in number, comments pertaining to livestock grazing, 

minerals and energy, fish and wildlife habitat, lands and realty, and socioeconomics were also received. A 

summary of all comments was compiled in the Scoping Report for the Wyoming Sage-grouse RMP 

Amendments, January 2011, which can be viewed on the project website. 

The second series of public scoping meetings associated with the National Sage-Grouse Strategy and the 

addition of the Forest Service planning units were held in Casper, Buffalo, Worland, Rock Springs, 

Douglas, Newcastle and Gillette, Wyoming on January 30 and 31 and February 1, 2, 7, 9, and 15, 

respectively. A total of 98 people attended the seven meetings, and the format was similar to the first 

series of scoping meetings. Public comments were collected during the scoping meetings and throughout 

the scoping period through mail, e-mail, and the project website. 

For the second scoping effort, comments were organized into four planning classifications: 

• General comments related to the planning area 

• Issues that will be addressed through BLM or Forest Service policy or administrative action 

(National, Forest Service or BLM policy) 

• Issues that are beyond the scope of the planning effort 

• Planning issues related to the planning effort. 

A summary of all comments was compiled in the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Land 

Use Plan Amendments and Environmental Impact Statements Scoping Summary Report, May 2012, 

which can be viewed on the project website. 

Planning Issues 

Planning issues are determined from demands, concerns, conflicts, or problems concerning use or 

management of public lands and resources. Issues express concerns, opportunities, conflicts, and 

problems associated with the management of public lands. Issues also reflect new data, new or revised 

policies, and changes in resources uses affecting the planning area. Management concerns are topics or 

points of dispute that involve a resource management activity or land use. While some concerns overlap 

issues, a management concern is generally more important to an individual or group, as opposed to a 

planning issue which has more widespread point of conflict. These issues are usually expressed in terms 

of the potential adverse consequences or effects that a particular land or resource use may have on other 

land or resources used or valued by another or for another purpose. 

Initially, the BLM identified the following three planning issues to be considered within the RMP 

Amendments for the six field offices: 

• Consistency of existing Land Use Plan (LUP) decisions with State of Wyoming Executive Order 

2011-5.

• Consistency of sage-grouse policy with other LUP resource decisions and the need to revise the 

RMPs to address inconsistencies. 
Draft EIS Executive Summary 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment vii

• What is the amendment process that revises LUP decisions to best protect the sage-grouse, 

incorporate the new Wyoming sage-grouse policy, while minimizing changes to other resource 

management decisions? 

After the initial scoping for the project, the Forest Service LRMPs were added to the planning effort for a 

region-wide sage-grouse planning effort, and a second scoping period was opened. Additional preliminary 

planning issues were identified by the BLM and Forest Service, including the following: 

• Lands addressed in the LUP amendments will be public lands (including surface-estate split 

estate lands) managed by the BLM and Forest Service, respectively, in Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitats. Any decisions in the LUP amendments will apply only to Federal lands administered by 

either the BLM or the Forest Service. 

• The BLM and Forest Service will consider a range of reasonable alternatives, including 

appropriate management prescriptions that focus on the relative values of resources while 

contributing to the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. 

• The BLM and Forest Service will endeavor to use current scientific information, research, 

technologies, and results of inventory, monitoring, and coordination to determine appropriate 

local and regional management strategies that will enhance or restore Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitats. 

• For BLM-administered lands, all activities and uses within Greater Sage-Grouse habitats will 

conform to existing land health standards. Standards and guidelines (S&G) for livestock grazing 

and other programs that have developed guidelines will be applicable to all alternatives for BLM 

lands. 

• The BLM and Forest Service will consult with Indian tribes to identify sites, areas, and objects 

important to their cultural and religious heritage within Greater Sage-Grouse habitats. 

• The BLM and Forest Service will coordinate and communicate with state, local, and tribal 

governments to ensure that the BLM and Forest Service consider provisions of pertinent plans, 

seek to resolve inconsistencies between state, local, and tribal plans, and provide ample 

opportunities for state, local, and tribal governments to comment on the development of 

amendments or revisions. 

• The BLM and Forest Service will develop vegetation management objectives, including 

objectives for managing noxious weeds and invasive species (including identification of desired 

future condition for specific areas), within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. 

• The LUP amendments will be based on the principles of Adaptive Management. 

• Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenarios and planning for Fluid Minerals will follow the 

BLM Handbook H–1624–1 and current fluid minerals manual guidance for fluid mineral (oil and 

gas and coalbed methane) and geothermal resources. For National Forest System Lands, the 

Forest Service will use applicable and relevant policy and procedures. 

• The RMP and LRMP amendments will be developed using an interdisciplinary approach to 

prepare reasonable foreseeable development scenarios, identify alternatives, and analyze resource 

impacts, including cumulative impacts to natural and cultural resources and the social and 

economic environment. 
Executive Summary Draft EIS 

viii Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Additional planning issues were identified during the two public scoping periods and from information 

gathered in analyzing the existing management situation in the planning area. Based on the input of the 

public, other government agencies, and the BLM and its cooperators, issues were identified for the 

following resource areas: 

Air Quality 

Impacts from climate change should be included in the analysis of the RMP and LRMP amendments. 

General (Process/Policy) 

The BLM should consider all instruction memorandums (IM) related to Greater Sage-Grouse in the 

development of the RMP amendments, such as Wyoming IM 2010-022 (addresses fences and wind 

energy structures), IM 2010-071 (addresses sage-grouse management considerations for energy 

development), WO IM 2012-044 (BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy), and 

WY IM 2012-019 (Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Policy on Wyoming BLM Lands). Use the 

best available science and specific documents in the development of the LUP amendments, such as 

BLM/Forest Service policy documents, other state and federal environmental policies, and scientific 

journal articles. Include terminology definitions, such as “disruptive activity” and “suitable habitat.” 

Consider a range of management approaches for sage-grouse habitat protection. Follow the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) regulations and BLM/Forest Service policy in developing the 

LUP amendments and how the Wyoming planning effort will be incorporated at the regional level. 

Lands and Realty 

Consider how the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse management would impact management or 

construction of rights-of-way (ROW) including corridors, and how power lines and corridors could 

impact sage-grouse. 

Livestock Grazing 

Consider both the continuation and elimination of livestock grazing practices. Include the impacts of 

livestock grazing on sage-grouse habitat, such as the spread of weeds, soil loss, and range deterioration. 

Coordinate with livestock grazing permittees in the LUP amendment process and incorporate livestock 

grazing management as an important part of the LUP amendments. In addition, water, riparian, and 

wetland comments associated with livestock grazing were submitted. 

Minerals and Energy 

Minerals and energy issues include considering the benefits and detriments to sage-grouse from wind and 

conventional energy development on BLM-administered lands and National Forest System Lands. 

Analyze impacts from mineral development on sage-grouse and their habitat, such as lek and nest 

abandonment, habitat fragmentation, and overall habitat loss, wind energy development in Wyoming and 

the efforts operators are making to support sage-grouse and associated habitat. Consider the effects the 

Wyoming sage-grouse policy could have on mineral development, such as allowing for valid existing 

rights for lease development, buffer distances, reclamation requirements, well density, and regulations on 

development in non-core areas. Additional issues were about management on split estate lands, 

cumulative impacts of development on sage-grouse habitat, particularly for oil and gas, and impacts of 

wind development, as well as specific implementation-level recommendations. There were concerns with 

how the BLM and Forest Service will manage unique energy production techniques including, but not 

limited to, oil shale extraction and wind development in sage-grouse habitat. Development in the Powder 

River and Hoback Basins were of particular concern. 
Draft EIS Executive Summary 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment ix

Recreation 

Consider the level of recreation that could be allowed to reduce or prevent impacts to sage-grouse habitat. 

Managing recreation use is not a major component of the new Wyoming sage-grouse management policy. 

Through the regulation of recreation special use permits, and the implementation of transportation 

management plans, some recreation uses may be more regulated in sage-grouse habitats than previous 

management prescriptions. However, this will not account for potential disturbances to breeding or 

nesting birds, since most recreation activities are not restricted by timing limitations. 

Socioeconomic 

Consider the adverse economic impacts from the Wyoming sage-grouse management policy and the need 

for socioeconomic analysis of the impacts from the policy. 

Special Management Area Designations 

Core areas could be considered for protection through designations of Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACEC) and the RMP amendments should consider ACECs to protect sage-grouse, specifically 

within the Pinedale Field Office. 

Special Status Species (Including Greater Sage-Grouse) 

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

Focusing sage-grouse management on only core habitat areas could lessen protections in general habitat, 

which could be detrimental to the species. Management should address all threats to sage-grouse, 

including predation by other species. Use valid sage-grouse data and ensure that sufficient data has been 

collected to make management decisions within the LUP Amendments. Try to find a balance of managing 

sage-grouse populations effectively while much of BLM-administered lands and National Forest System 

Lands are already leased for mineral development. 

Greater buffer distances, additional seasonal stipulations, and expansion or reduction of core areas are 

management actions that should be considered in the LUP amendments. 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 are issues to be included in the document. 

Consideration of specific sage-grouse habitat requirements, such as migration corridors and lek, nesting, 

winter, and brood-rearing habitat, were described and addressed in the comments. 

Other concerns included management recommendations for particular components of habitat as well as 

discussion of specific potential habitat areas. Areas include: Thunder Basin National Grassland; Upper 

Snake River Basin; Greys River Ranger District of the Bridger-Teton National Forest; Upper Green River 

core population and the Gros Ventre River Valley; Bacon Ridge/Breakneck Flats sage-grouse winter use 

areas; Upper Green River Core population and the Hoback Basin; connectivity of sagebrush habitats 

along the Wyoming-Idaho State line near Crow, Stump, and Spring Creeks; and habitat connectivity with 

occupied habitat in Star Valley and Southeast Idaho. 

Travel and Access Management 

Consider vehicle use and roads within core habitat, as well as potential for reduced access to BLM and 

Forest Service lands from the new management for sage-grouse. 

Vegetation 

Consider vegetation treatments and the benefits of those treatments on sagebrush habitat, and the threat of 

cheatgrass and other invasive species on sagebrush habitat. 
Executive Summary Draft EIS 

x Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Wildland Fire Management 

Wildland Fire (planned and unplanned) may be considered for use in enhancing sagebrush habitat. 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

Consider the health and management of sagebrush habitat, restoration of sagebrush and opportunities to 

restore degraded sage-grouse habitat as potential mitigation measures for project proponents, and current 

and future effectiveness of the restoration of sagebrush habitat due to low precipitation, cheatgrass 

invasion, and wildland fire. Consider the current conditions of 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. Address the management of the entire sagebrush ecosystem, as other 

sagebrush obligate species’ populations are also in decline. Recommendations included specific design 

features to protect sage-grouse from predators. In addition, comments were received on potential conflicts 

between prairie dog and Greater Sage-Grouse management. 

The full range of issues raised during the public scoping period can be viewed in the Wyoming Sagegrouse RMP Amendments Scoping Report and the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Land 

Use Plan Amendments and Environmental Impact Statements Scoping Summary Report. 

COOPERATING AGENCIES

The BLM Wyoming State Office extended cooperating agency status to government entities and agencies 

throughout the 17-county planning area. The following is a list of the cooperating agencies that have 

actively attended the cooperators meetings leading to the development of the draft LUP amendments and 

EIS.

• City of Laramie 

• City of Rawlins 

• City of Rock Springs 

• Coalition of Local Governments 

• Crook County 

• Fremont County 

• The Governor’s Office 

• Lincoln County 

• Little Snake River Conservation District 

• Medicine Bow Conservation District 

• Representative Lummis’ Office 

• Rock Springs Grazing Association 

• Saratoga Encampment Rawlins Conservation District 

• Senator Barrasso’s Office 

• Senator Enzi’s Office 

• South Goshen Conservation District 

• Sublette County Commissioners 

• Sublette County Conservation District 

• Sweetwater County 

• Sweetwater County Conservation District 

• Uinta County 

• Uinta County Conservation District 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

• U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
Draft EIS Executive Summary 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment xi

• Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

• Wyoming Department of Agriculture 

• Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

• Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office 

The cooperating agencies were formally invited to participate in developing the alternatives and to 

provide data and other information relative to their disciplines. The BLM held meetings with the 

cooperating agencies on July 19 and July 20, 2010, and October 6, 2010, concerning the approach to the 

planning process and development of alternatives. The cooperating agencies were invited to work with 

the BLM interdisciplinary team in developing the alternatives during the weeks of October 25–28, 2010, 

November 30–December 2, 2010, and March 31, 2011; and again to develop and finalize the preferred 

alternative on September 27, 2011. 

The draft alternatives were revised in 2012 due to the release of the BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Planning Strategy. The cooperating agencies were invited to work with BLM and Forest Service in 

additional alternative development meetings on June 14, 2012 and January 16, 2013. Cooperating 

agencies met with the BLM and Forest Service on June 3–4, 2013 to formulate the preferred alternative 

for the draft LUP amendments. 

MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives Development Process 

The BLM and Forest Service complied with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

implementing regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §1500 in the development of 

alternatives for this draft EIS, including seeking public input and analyzing a reasonable range of 

alternatives. In developing alternatives, the BLM and Forest Service also took into consideration 

management options for planning decisions in the RMPs and LRMPs for the planning area. 

The existing BLM RMPs and Forest Service LRMPs served as the foundation for the No Action 

Alternative. In some cases, the decisions in the existing RMPs and LRMPs were found to be sufficient for 

Greater Sage-Grouse protection; in these instances, there was limited need to develop alternative 

management prescriptions. For a few of the actions, management prescriptions are the same across all 

action alternatives or may reflect only a decision to implement or not implement an action. Where these 

actions are the same across all of the action alternatives, they have been included in the alternative tables 

to provide a complete picture of the management prescriptions for the planning area. 

Public input received during the scoping process was considered to ensure that all issues and concerns 

were addressed, as appropriate, in developing the management alternatives. The scoping process and 

opportunities for future public and agency involvement are summarized in Chapter 5. 

Development of the alternatives began with BLM Wyoming’s Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2010-012, 

IM 2012-019, and BLM WO IM 2012-044 for Wyoming statewide and national management of Greater 

Sage-Grouse. A “Citizens Proposed Conservation” alternative was submitted during the second scoping 

period which was incorporated as a unique management alternative. The BLM, Forest Service, and 

Cooperating Agencies participated in drafting Alternatives A, D and E. Alternative B is based on the 

National Technical Team Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures (IM 2012-044) and Alternative C, 

the Citizens Proposed Conservation alternative, is based upon comments received as a result of the 

December 2011 NOI. The Cooperating agencies reviewed and provided input into the development of the 

draft alternatives prior to development and selection of the Preferred Alternative. Among all the 

alternatives, Alternative E, the Preferred Alternative, was developed last. The BLM’s NEPA handbook (H 
Executive Summary Draft EIS 

xii Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

1790-1) requires the BLM to identify a preferred alternative in the Draft RMP/EIS. Identification of the 

preferred alternative is not a final agency decision but instead an indication of the agency’s preliminary 

preference that reflects the best combination of decisions to achieve BLM goals and policies, meets the 

purpose and need, addresses the key planning issues, and considers the recommendations of cooperating 

agencies and BLM specialists. 

Many of the decisions from the existing RMPs and LRMPs have been implemented. In some cases, 

implementation of these decisions established valid existing rights or other obligations that are important 

considerations in preparing the LUP amendments. For example, many of the oil and gas resources in the 

planning area are leased. The presence of these valid existing rights influences, and sometimes limits, 

management choices. Specific to the fluid minerals program, the alternatives in this draft EIS address the 

availability and allocation of lands for future oil and gas leasing, potential lease stipulations, and 

additional mitigation to be considered and applied during the Application for Permit to Drill (APD) 

process. 

Summary Description of the Management Alternatives 

Alternative A (No Action AlternativeContinuation of Existing Management) 

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) is defined as a continuation of the present course of management 

for sage-grouse within each of the BLM and Forest Service offices. Ongoing programs initiated under 

existing legislation, regulations and the existing LUPs would continue, even as new plans are developed 

or new planning efforts are being conducted with the planning area. Alternative A describes a subset of 

the current resource and land use management direction in the planning area that is proposed to be revised 

or supplemented by some or all of the action alternatives. This management may differ between BLM and 

Forest Service offices. Alternative A and its impact analysis represent the baseline to which the other 

management alternatives and their associated analyses are compared. Alternative A uses the terms 

“Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat” or “core areas” as described in WY EO 2011-5 and defined in this 

document’s Glossary as habitat that is most important for Greater Sage-Grouse. Management actions 

proposed under the Alternative A are presented in Table 2-1 below. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B is based on the conservation measures developed by the NTT planning effort in IM-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 Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Under this alternative, a surface disturbance 

cap of 3% per 640 acres is considered within sage-grouse priority habitat. In areas where the disturbance 

cap has been met by the project proponent, the BLM/Forest Service should consider opportunities for 

reclamation or removal of surface disturbing features that are no longer in use in order to reduce the 

current disturbance before further projects are permitted. This alternative considers incorporating a light 

grazing strategy, utilizing a 20-30% forage allocation for livestock allotments not meeting standards due 

to livestock grazing in sage-grouse priority habitat. Alternative B uses the term “Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority habitat” as described in IM 2012-044 and defined in this document’s Glossary. Priority habitat is 

the same as core habitat and the terms are used interchangeably among the alternatives, depending on the 

source of the Alternatives. Management actions proposed under Alternative B are presented in Table 2-1 

below. Alternative B is not strictly based on the conservation measures developed by the NTT planning 

effort. In the Western Watersheds Project v. U.S. Department of Interior, the Court remanded the Pinedale 

RMP decision to the BLM, without vacating the RMP, to allow the BLM to remedy the FLPMA and 

NEPA defects identified by the Court with respect to the Pinedale RMP and EIS. These remedies can be 

found in Alternative B. 
Draft EIS Executive Summary 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment xiii

Alternative C 

Alternative C is based on the citizen groups recommended alternative. This alternative emphasizes 

improvement and protection of habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse and is applied to all occupied Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat. Alternative C would limit commodity development in areas of occupied Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat, and would close or designate portions of the planning area to some land uses. Under 

this alternative, a surface disturbance cap of 3% per 640 acres is considered within sage-grouse priority 

habitat. This alternative considers closing priority sage-grouse habitat to livestock grazing. Alternative C 

uses the term “Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat” as described in IM 2012-044 and defined in this 

document’s Glossary. Priority habitat is the same as core habitat and the terms are used interchangeably 

among the alternatives, depending on the source of the Alternatives. Management actions proposed under 

Alternative C are presented in Table 2-1.

Alternative D 

Alternative D provides opportunities to use and develop the planning area while providing protection of 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat based on scoping comments and input from the Cooperating Agencies 

involved in the alternatives development process. This alternative increases the potential for development 

and resource use, with reduced Greater Sage-Grouse habitat protections. Protective measure would be 

applied to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Under this alternative, a surface disturbance cap of 9% per 640 

acres is considered within sage-grouse core habitat. Alternative D uses the terms “Greater Sage-Grouse 

core habitat” or “core areas” as described in WY EO 2011-5 and defined in this document’s Glossary. 

Management actions proposed under Alternative D are presented in Table 2-1.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative E incorporates the guidance from BLM IM WY-2010-012, the Wyoming Governor’s 

Executive Order (WY EO 2011-05) and additional management based on the NTT recommendations. 

This alternative emphasizes management of sage-grouse seasonal habitats and maintaining habitat 

connectivity to support population objectives set by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 

This guidance is consistent with guidelines provided in the Governor’s Sage-Grouse Implementation 

Team’s Core Population Area strategy and the WY EO 2011-05. Under this alternative, a surface 

disturbance cap of 5% per 640 acres is considered within sage-grouse core habitat. Alternative E uses the 

terms “Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat” or “core areas” as well as “priority habitat” if the action is the 

same as Alternatives B or C. Management actions proposed under Alternative E are presented in Table 2-

1.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The purpose of the analysis of environmental consequences is to determine the potential for significant 

impact of the “federal action” on the “human environment.” The CEQ regulations for implementing the 

NEPA states that the “human environment” shall be interpreted comprehensively to include the natural 

and physical environment, and the relationship of people with that environment (40 Code of Federal 

Regulations [CFR] §1508.14). The “federal action” is the BLM’s or the U.S. Forest Service’s (Forest 

Service) selection of a RMP, and a land and resource management plan (LRMP) amendment on which 

future land use actions will be based. 

The environmental consequences that could result from implementation of the management actions 

included in the five management alternatives are described in Chapter 4 and are summarized and 

compared in Table 2-6, Comparative Summary of Impacts. These potential environmental consequences 

are discussed for each resource program, providing a comprehensive analysis of environmental effects. 

The analysis identifies impacts that may enhance or improve a resource as a result of management 
Executive Summary Draft EIS 

xiv Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

actions, as well as those impacts that have the potential to impair a resource. The analysis of the 

alternatives is focused on identifying the types of impacts anticipated to occur and estimating their 

potential intensity. The analysis is organized by resource program and discloses the potential impacts on 

each resource program from implementing each of the proposed alternatives. The analysis also includes 

an assessment of cumulative effects, which are defined as the impacts that result from the incremental 

impact of an action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions.