Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-1 

CHAPTER 2—ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes five alternatives for management of the planning area. Alternative A (No Action 

Alternative) reflects current management and includes direction contained in the six Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) Resource Management Plans (RMP) and three U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) 

Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) that is associated with the protection of Greater SageGrouse and its habitat. Alternatives were developed based on National Greater Sage-Grouse policy, 

public comments, Wyoming statewide Greater Sage-Grouse management, the Conservation Objectives 

Team (COT) Report, and the National Technical Team (NTT) Conservation Measures Report (IM-2012-

044) to establish a framework for measuring the impacts that might result from management decisions. 

The alternatives represent reasonable approaches to managing Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and activities 

consistent with law, regulation, and policy. 

Section 2.2 presents an overview of the alternatives development process. Management guidance 

common to all alternatives is presented in Section 2.3. Section 2.4 contains summaries of each alternative. 

Section 2.5 presents the goals and objectives for each alternative. Section 2.6 presents a detailed 

description of each alternative, including management actions to be implemented by the BLM and Forest 

Service. Section 2.6 also includes acreage tables (Tables 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4) that present the geographic 

implications associated with each alternative. The acres presented in these tables are the result of 

analyzing only those management actions included in Table 2-1 as they relate sage-grouse habitat 

management. It is important to note the management actions in Alternative A reflect closed areas (oil and 

gas, wind and right-of-way [ROW]) for any reason. As a result, the existing RMPs and LRMPs amended 

by this LUP amendment include other land use restrictions that are not analyzed in this draft EIS and are 

therefore not included in the acreage tables below. Section 2.7 presents a summary comparison of impacts 

from management actions proposed for the five alternatives addressed in Chapter 4.

2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

2.2.1 Alternatives Development Process 

The BLM and Forest Service complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (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 

(scoping) 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 (hereafter, Land Use Plan [LUP]) for the planning area. 

The BLM and Forest Service LUPs served as the foundation for the No Action Alternative. In some 

cases, the decisions in the LUPs 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. Where these actions are the 

same across all of the 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 alternatives. The scoping process and opportunities for 

future public and agency involvement are summarized in Chapter 5. 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-2 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

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

and IM 2012-019 and BLM Washington Office (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 alternative. Alternative B is based 

on the National Technical Team Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures (IM- 2012-044) and 

Alternative C is based upon comments received as a result of the December 2011 Notice of Intent (NOI). 

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 and Forest Service are required to identify a 

preferred alternative in the Draft LUP/EIS, as per 40 CFR 1502.14. 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 and Forest Service goals and policies, 

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

cooperating agencies and BLM specialists. The BLM’s and Forest Service’s preferred alternative is 

Alternative E.

Many of the decisions from the existing LUPs 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 oil and gas program, the alternatives in this draft EIS would apply to LUPs and activity 

level decisions that are not yet implemented by addressing the availability 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. 

2.2.2 Alternatives and Management Options Considered But 

Eliminated From Detailed Analysis 

The following alternatives and management options were considered as possible methods of resolving 

Greater Sage-Grouse management issues and conflicts, but were eliminated from detailed analysis 

because they were unreasonable or not practical or feasible as a result of technical, legal or policy factors; 

were not found to be necessary to achieve the intended result, or did not meet the purpose and need for 

the planning effort. 

Alternatives that Include Stipulations for Protection of Sage-Grouse Habitat from 

Oil Shale Resources 

Comments were received during the public scoping process that suggested the BLM should either adopt 

the permitting processes guidelines and stipulations in the Wyoming Executive Order (EO) 2011-05 or 

develop some other mitigation strategies for the protection of Sage-Grouse habitat from oil shale 

development. This is an issue that has been previously raised in the context of both the 2008 and the 2013 

oil shale and tar sands planning initiatives. Both the 2008 and 2013 Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements (PEIS) limit the scope of the decisions supported by the 

development of the PEIS to an allocation decision. (Please see Chapter 1 and Chapter 2, Section 2.5, page 

2-80 of the Proposed LUP for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered 

by the Bureau of Land Management in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement). This land use allocation does not authorize any future lease or 

development proposal. The current experimental state of the oil shale and tar sands industries does not 

allow the PEIS to include sufficient specific information or cumulative impact analyses to support future 

leasing decisions within these allocated lands. Accordingly, both the 2008 and 2013 Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands PEISs make clear that prior to any actual oil shale leasing, additional NEPA, and other applicable 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-3 

analyses will be required. Those analyses could result in decisions not to lease in specific areas or to lease 

in particular areas with stipulations, such as stipulations precluding surface disturbance. 

If and when applications to lease oil shale resources are received and accepted by the Secretary, the BLM 

will conduct these additional required analyses, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects, reasonable alternatives, and possible mitigation measures, as well as an assessment of the level of 

development that may be anticipated. On the basis of that analysis of future lease application(s), the BLM 

will establish general lease stipulations and best management practices and amend applicable land use 

plans, if necessary. BLM managers retain authority to approve, modify, or deny future lease and 

development proposals based on consideration of numerous factors, including, but not limited to, the 

specific technology proposed for use, the anticipated impacts on natural and cultural resources, economic 

viability, and community concerns. As part of the NEPA review process for any future oil shale lease, the 

BLM will consider the processes, guidelines, and stipulations detailed in EO 2011-05. After a lease is 

authorized, actual development will require additional analysis to address the site-specific conditions of 

the proposed development and to develop mitigating measures. 

This lack of specific information regarding the specific technological requirements and environmental 

consequences that might be associated with the development of oil shale resources on the public lands 

also means that, with respect to this Sage-Grouse planning effort, it would be premature for the BLM to 

consider specific protective stipulations. At this point, there is insufficient analytical basis for such 

consideration. For this reason, the BLM is not carrying forward for more detailed analysis in this EIS 

consideration of protective stipulations to be adopted for oil shale development. 

Closure of Sage-Grouse Habitat to Off-Highway Vehicle Use 

The BLM and Forest Service identified, but did not analyze in detail, an alternative to designate new area 

closures for off-highway vehicles within sage-grouse priority/core and general habitat areas. The 

following provides the rationale for why OHV area closures were eliminated from detailed study: 

 There were no internal or external scoping comments submitted that suggested areas closures 

were an issue for detailed analysis during the public scoping period. 

 Many of the BLM field offices that include sage-grouse priority/core and general habitat in the 

Great Basin and Rocky Mountain Regions have not initiated or completed route inventories; 

therefore, the BLM is not currently aware of the number of existing routes, or what the purpose of 

each of those routes may be. Without this detailed information, this large-scale programmatic EIS 

cannot propose area OHV closures because the analysis would be inconclusive. In addition, there 

is insufficient information to analyze the effects of these routes on Greater Sage-Grouse, resource 

allocations, uses, and the public. 

 The appropriate planning level to evaluate closed OHV areas is during field office land use plan 

revisions or amendments, not for this multi-state programmatic plan amendment effort. During 

the field office plan revisions/amendments process, travel and transportation planning (areas 

open, closed and limited to OHVs) would be one of the key decisions being made for the local 

planning effort, and appropriate inventories would be conducted or local level information would 

be available in order to make site-specific decisions related to area closures. OHV decisions at the 

BLM field office/Forest Service district scale would take all resource conflicts and uses into 

consideration, not just sage-grouse. The massive scale of this programmatic EIS amendment is 

not conducive to providing detailed analysis concerning this decision. 

 Field office plan revisions will take the initial "limited to existing roads" the sub-regional effort 

will likely identify, and step that down to RMP-level transportation planning during their 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-4 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

revisions at a scale where the data is available to assess the nature of the designations and 

closures and multiple resource needs, not only sage-grouse. 

 There are some OHV closures are already in place based on existing field office land use plans. 

Some of these closures intersect sage-grouse priority/core and general habitat areas and would 

remain constant under all alternatives in this EIS/amendment. 

 Route inventories in sage-grouse priority/core and general habitat are currently underway based 

on coordinated efforts between the BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) staff. 

Through these efforts, the agencies have determined where the greatest threats have been 

identified in Greater Sage-Grouse populations and thus a priority for inventory. 

 Once the inventories are completed, the BLM will initiate travel and transportation management 

plans, which will be subject to a NEPA analysis and will include public involvement. 

 USDA Forest Service, Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; 

Final Rule – 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295, Effective December 9, 2005. The final rule 

will prohibit the use of motor vehicles off the designated system, as well as use of motor vehicles 

on routes and in areas that is not consistent with the designations. This rule also includes seasonal 

closures and motorized vehicle classifications. The Travel Rule defines a Designated Road as a 

National Forest System Road. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Listing with Associated Conservation Measures 

Recommendations to analyze the effects of a USFWS listing decision were provided. Inadequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms was identified as one of the listing factors for Greater Sage-Grouse in the USFWS 

finding on the petition to list Greater Sage-Grouse. The USFWS identified the principal regulatory 

mechanism for the BLM and Forest Service as conservation measures in land use plans. In response to the 

USFWS findings, as well as the BLM’s and Forest Service’s requirement to manage sensitive species, the 

BLM and Forest Service are preparing plan amendments with an associated EIS to incorporate 

conservation measures in land use plans for Greater Sage-Grouse. Because the purpose of the plan 

amendments is to identify and incorporate appropriate conservation measures in land use plans to 

conserve, enhance and/or restore Greater Sage-Grouse habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing 

threats to that habitat, the alternatives in this EIS, therefore, focus on those conservation measures that 

can be incorporated into the land use plans. Although the potential listing of Greater Sage-Grouse would 

also include conservation measures identified by the USFWS, those conservation measures are not known 

at this time. Therefore, an alternative that includes USFWS-listing with associated conservation measures 

for Greater Sage-Grouse was not analyzed in detail. Therefore a USFWS listing decision is not analyzed 

in detail, because such an alternative would not meet the purpose and need, and therefore associated 

analysis would be outside the scope of this EIS. 

Designation of All Sage-grouse General Habitat as Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern or Forest Service Special Interest Areas 

The BLM/Forest Service identified, but did not analyze in detail, an alternative to designate all Greater 

Sage-Grouse general habitat (Map 3-18) as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) or 

Special Interest Area (SIA). These areas did not meet the relevance and importance criteria necessary to 

be considered for ACEC designation as determined by BLM regulation, nor did they meet designation 

criteria as determined by Forest Service regulation. However, the areas found to meet relevance and 

importance criteria are analyzed in detail in Alternative B and Alternative C. The sage-grouse priority 

habitat areas met relevance and importance due to their size and proposed restrictions on oil and gas and 

wind energy development. Other sensitive resources would benefit from this ACEC designation. The 

priority habitat areas also contain other sensitive wildlife habitats including big game crucial winter 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-5 

range, parturition habitats, and migration corridors. The sage-steppe habitats in the proposed priority 

habitat area is the most intact stands of habitat remaining for sagebrush obligate species, many of which 

are considered BLM sensitive, such as the pygmy rabbit, brewer’s sparrow, the loggerhead shrike, and the 

sage sparrow to name a few. There are also several areas of special status plant species within the sagesteppe core habitat areas. The fragmentation of much of the habitats outside of priority habitat in addition 

to continuous drought cycles have resulted in limitations and conflict for resources in the remaining 

habitats, making the intact priority habitats that much more important. 

The sage-grouse general habitat areas did not meet the ACEC importance criteria due to the cumulative 

buildup of anthropomorphic disturbances over time that has reduced habitat effectiveness to the point that 

the Greater Sage-Grouse has been identified as eligible for listing under the Endangered Species Act. The 

combination of disturbances industrial and agricultural in general habitats negates the benefits of the 

added protection needed in priority habitat and may inadvertently increase fragmentation of priority 

habitat, as the complexities of overlapping resource values and projects of national interest intersect. The 

general habitats within the project area in most cases have intensive mineral development and are held by 

production. The added value of managing the general habitat as an ACEC would not be fully realized due 

to the valid existing rights encumbering these habitats, which is largely why these areas were not included 

in the core-area strategy by the State of Wyoming. 

2.3 MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE COMMON TO ALL ACTION 

ALTERNATIVES

This section describes proposed management guidance that would apply to all action alternatives 

(Alternatives B through E). As conditions, law, and policy change over time or new data are collected, the 

LUPs would continue to be updated through maintenance actions or amendments, as appropriate, to 

ensure management decisions reflect those changes. An implementation plan will be developed after 

approval of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the LUPs. The implementation plan will address 

monitoring, mitigation, projects, and activities to achieve the goals and objectives of the LUPs. 

2.3.1 Monitoring 

BLM’s and Forest Service’s planning regulations, specifically Monitoring and Evaluation 43 CFR 

1610.4-9 (Monitoring and Evaluation) and 36 CFR 219.12 (Monitoring), respectively, require that land 

use plans establish intervals and standards for monitoring, based on the sensitivity of the resource 

decisions. Forest Service’s planning regulations (specifically FSM 1926.7 Monitoring and Evaluation and 

36 CFR 219.12(k) of the planning regulations in effect before November 9, 2000) require monitoring of 

the LRMP and projects and activities to determine how well objectives have been met and how closely 

management standards and guidelines have been applied. Land use plan and LRMP monitoring is 

conducted at three levels: implementation, effectiveness, and validation. For Greater Sage-Grouse, these 

types of monitoring are also described in the criteria found in the USFWS and National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) 

(50 CFR Vol. 68, No. 60). One of the PECE criteria evaluates whether provisions for monitoring and 

reporting progress on implementation (based on compliance with the implementation schedule) and 

effectiveness (based on evaluation of quantifiable parameters) of the conservation effort are provided. 

A guiding principle in BLM National Sage-grouse Conservation Strategy (2004) is that “the Bureau is 

committed to sage-grouse and sagebrush conservation and will continue to adjust and adapt our National 

Sage-grouse Strategy as new information, science and monitoring results evaluate effectiveness over 

time.” In keeping with the WAFWA Sage-grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy (Stiver 2006) 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-6 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

and the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Objectives: Final Report (USFWS 2013), the BLM and Forest 

Service will monitor implementation and effectiveness of conservation measures in sage-grouse habitats. 

On March 5, 2010, the 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus

urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered were posted as a Federal Register notice (75 FR 13910 

14014). This notice stated: “...the information collected by the BLM could not be used to make broad 

generalizations about the status of rangelands and management actions. There was a lack of consistency 

across the range in how questions were interpreted and answered for the data call, which limited our 

ability to use the results to understand habitat conditions for sage-grouse on BLM lands.” The notice also 

stated: “We do not have information regarding the current land health status of National Forest System 

Lands in relation to the conservation needs of Greater Sage-Grouse; thus, we cannot assess whether 

existing conditions adequately meet the species habitat needs.” Standardization of monitoring methods 

and implementation of a defensible monitoring approach (within and across jurisdictions) will resolve this 

situation. The BLM, Forest Service, and other conservation partners will use the resulting information to 

guide implementation of conservation activities. 

Monitoring strategies for sage-grouse habitat and populations must be collaborative, as habitat occurs 

across jurisdictional boundaries (52% BLM, 31% private, 8% Forest Service, 5% state, 4% tribal and 

other Federal; 75 FR 13910), and because state fish and wildlife agencies have primary responsibility for 

population level management of wildlife, including population monitoring. Therefore, population efforts 

will continue to be conducted in partnership with state fish and wildlife agencies. The BLM and Forest 

Service are currently in the process of finalizing a Monitoring Framework which will be included in the 

Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS. This framework will describe the process that the BLM and 

Forest Service will use to monitor implementation and effectiveness of LUP decisions. The Monitoring 

Framework will include methods, data standards, and intervals of monitoring at broad and mid scales; 

consistent indicators to measure and metric descriptions for each of the scales (see Habitat Assessment 

Framework (HAF) and Assessment, Inventory and Monitoring (AIM) core indicators); analysis and 

reporting methods; and the incorporation of monitoring results into adaptive management. The need for 

fine and site-scale specific habitat monitoring may vary by area depending on existing conditions, habitat 

variability, threats, and land health. Indicators at the fine and site scales will be consistent with the HAF; 

however, the values for the indicators could be adjusted for regional conditions. The major components of 

the Monitoring Framework can be found in Appendix D of this draft EIS. 

More specifically, the framework will discuss how the BLM and Forest Service will monitor and track 

implementation and effectiveness of planning decisions (e.g., tracking of waivers, modifications, site 

level actions). The two agencies will monitor the effectiveness of LUP decisions in meeting management 

and conservation objectives. Effectiveness monitoring will include monitoring disturbance in habitats as 

well as landscape habitat attributes. To monitor habitats, the BLM and Forest Service will measure and 

track attributes of occupied habitat, priority habitat, and general habitat at the broad scale, and attributes 

of habitat availability, patch size, connectivity, linkage areas, edge effect, and anthropogenic disturbances 

at the mid-scale. Disturbance monitoring will measure and track changes in the amount of sagebrush in 

the landscape and changes in the anthropogenic footprint including the change in the density of energy 

development. The framework will also include methodology for analysis and reporting for Field 

Offices/States/Ranger Districts/BLM Districts/Forests/Forest Service Regions including geospatial and 

tabular data for disturbance mapping (e.g., geospatial footprint of new permitted disturbances) and 

effectiveness of management actions. The monitoring data will provide the indicator estimates for 

adaptive management. The BLM and the Forest Service will adjust management decisions through an 

adaptive management process. 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-7 

2.3.2 Adaptive Management 

Adaptive management is a decision process that promotes flexible resource management decision making 

that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events 

become better understood. Careful monitoring of these outcomes advances scientific understanding and 

helps with adjusting resource management directions as part of an iterative learning process. Adaptive 

management also recognizes the importance of natural variability in contributing to ecological resilience 

and productivity. It is not a ‘trial and error’ process, but rather emphasizes learning while doing. Adaptive 

management does not represent an end in itself, but rather a means to more effective decisions and 

enhanced benefits. On February 1, 2008, the Department of the Interior (DOI) published its Adaptive 

Management Implementation Policy (522 DM 1). On January 31, 2006, the Forest Service published its 

Adaptive Planning Process in Forest Service Handbook 1901.12_20. The adaptive management strategy 

presented within this draft EIS complies with these policies. 

In relation to the BLM’s/Forest Service’s National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy, adaptive 

management will help identify if sage-grouse conservation measures presented in this draft EIS contain 

the needed level of certainty for effectiveness. If principles of adaptive management are incorporated into 

the conservation measure in the plan (to ameliorate threats to a species), there is a greater likelihood that a 

conservation measure or plan will be effective in reducing threats to that species. The following provides 

the BLM/Forest Service adaptive management strategy for the LUP amendments. 

Adaptive Management and Monitoring 

The BLM and Forest Service will develop an adaptive management plan to provide certainty that 

unintended negative impacts to sage-grouse will be addressed before consequences become severe or 

irreversible and to provide regulatory certainty to the USFWS that appropriate action will be taken by the 

BLM and Forest Service. 

Wyoming BLM and Forest Service will coordinate with the State of Wyoming in implementation 

planning to develop a statewide adaptive management plan, including mitigation where appropriate, and a 

framework to evaluate causal factors. The adaptive management plan will identify adaptive management 

hard and soft triggers; indicators to be measured; and appropriate mitigation, restoration, and reclamation 

actions, including targets and benchmarks for responses. The plan will include both short-term and longterm monitoring. The adaptive management plan will guide the development of project level adaptive 

management strategies. 

This adaptive management plan will: 

 Identify science based soft and hard adaptive management triggers applicable to each population 

or subpopulation within the planning area

 Address how the multiple scale data from the Monitoring Framework Plan (Appendix D) will be 

used to gauge when adaptive management triggers are met

 Charter an adaptive management working group to assist with responding to soft adaptive 

management triggers.

Adaptive Management Triggers 

Adaptive management triggers are essential for identifying when potential management changes are 

needed in order to continue meeting sage-grouse conservation objectives. The BLM/Forest Service will 

use a continuum of trigger points (soft and hard triggers), which will enhance BLM’s and Forest Service’s 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-8 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

ability to effectively manage sage-grouse habitat. The soft and hard triggers that will be delineated in the 

adaptive management plan will (at a minimum): 

 Be based upon the best available science 

 Tied to the populations/demographics 

 Take into account the importance of various seasonal habitat types 

 Not be limited to a single time “window.” 

Soft triggers indicate when the BLM/Forest Service will consider adjustments to resources or resource use 

management. An adaptive management working group will help identify the causal factors as to what 

prompted the soft adaptive management trigger. The group will also provide recommendations to the 

appropriate BLM/Forest Service authorizing official (decision maker) regarding the applicable 

management response to address this trigger (e.g. effective mitigation, restoration, reclamation, and in 

some instances, a land use plan amendment or revision). When organizing the adaptive management 

working group, the BLM and Forest Service will invite participation from BLM, Forest Service, USFWS, 

local governments, and applicable state fish and game agencies. 

Hard triggers indicate when the BLM/Forest Service will take immediate action to stop the continued 

deviation from conservation objectives. These actions could include one or more of the following (which 

may require subsequent NEPA analysis): 

 Temporary closures (as directed under BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2013-035)

 Immediate implementation of interim management policies and procedures through the 

BLM/Forest Service directives system 

 Initiation of a new LUP Amendment to consider changes to the existing LUP decisions. 

2.3.3 Mitigation 

Mitigation strategies, which take into account the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize, restore, offset), 

are an important tool for ensuring the BLM and Forest Service meet their Greater Sage-Grouse resource 

objectives while continuing to honor their multiple-use missions. The BLM’s and Forest Service’s 

priority is to mitigate impacts to an acceptable level onsite, to the extent practical, through avoidance (not 

taking a certain action or parts of an action), minimization (limiting the degree or magnitude of the action 

and its implementation), rectification (repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment), or 

reduction of impacts over time (preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action). 

While mitigating impacts for proposed projects to an acceptable level onsite is typically analyzed and 

determined through site-specific, implementation-level NEPA documents and their commensurate 

decision documents, the analysis and mitigation for project level activities will be tiered to the analysis 

and mitigation proposed throughout each of the action alternatives in this Amendment.

For those impacts that cannot be sufficiently avoided or minimized onsite, the BLM/Forest Service must 

ensure implementation of effective measures to offset (or compensate for) such impacts and to maintain 

or improve the viability of sage-grouse habitat and populations over time, as described in the Service’s 

Conservation Objectives Team Report. Regional mitigation may be a necessary component for many 

large renewable and nonrenewable energy development projects as well as many smaller projects with 

cumulative effects on the Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. 

Any mitigation strategy on National Forest System Lands will follow established regulation and policy in 

the Forest Service Manual and Handbook. Any regional mitigation strategy for BLM-managed lands will 

comply with BLM’s Regional Mitigation Manual Section (MS) 1794, which provides policies, 

procedures, and instructions for: 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-9 

 Adopting a regional approach to planning and implementing mitigation, including pre-identifying 

potential mitigation sites, projects, and measures 

 Identifying the type of mitigation that is needed to compensate for impacts to resources or values 

caused by a land use authorization. 

It is important to note that any mitigation strategy must include the cooperation and coordination of 

appropriate and pertinent federal, state, and local land and resource management agencies across the 

landscape. The final strategy adopted and implemented within a landscape will be dependent on the 

unique resources and values of the regional landscape and the mitigation strategies and resources 

contributed by the regional partners. It is important to acknowledge that the state government working 

with the BLM/Forest Service as a Cooperating Agency on this land use plan amendment may have 

already completed, or is currently working on, statewide mitigation strategies. The BLM/Forest Service 

will continue to work with and support those state government efforts. 

The BLM and Forest Service will establish a Mitigation Implementation Team for each of the six 

WAFWA Management Zones in the West, following the completion of each of the 15 sub-regional EISs 

that are associated with the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy. The planning area presented 

in this sub-regional EIS lies within WAFWA Management Zones I and II. The teams are responsible for 

developing a Mitigation Strategy (MS) consistent with BLM MS 1794, as appropriate. The teams will 

coordinate recommended mitigation strategies between LUP planning areas, WAFWA management 

zones, and local and state jurisdictions for mitigation consistency, where appropriate. 

These implementation teams will be responsible for implementing BLM MS 1794, and making 

recommendations regarding the following items related to compensatory mitigation: 

 A structure for determining appropriate mitigation, including impact (debit) and benefit (credit) 

calculation methods, mitigation ratios, mitigation “currency” (i.e., numbers of birds, acres, etc.), 

location, and performance standards options by considering local and regional, mitigation options 

 How to resolve mitigation oriented discrepancies that arise within the WAFWA Management 

Zone or between Zones 

 The application and the holding and disposition of any mitigation funds 

 The most appropriate mitigation for impacts from a given land use authorization and type of 

seasonal habitat impacted 

 Prioritization of potential mitigation sites, projects, and measures, as guided by conservation 

strategies (e.g., PACs, priority habitat areas)

 Reviewing mitigation monitoring reports and analyzing and reporting on project effectiveness, 

corrective measures/adaptive management (where required), and cumulative effects of mitigation 

actions at the PAC and the WAFWA zone. 

 These WAFWA Management Zone Implementation Teams will function as interdisciplinary 

teams (IDT) composed of BLM, Forest Service, USFWS and state fish and game agencies. The 

Mitigation Implementation Team will make recommendations to the BLM Authorized Officer 

(AO). If the recommendations are rejected for any reason, the Mitigation Implementation Team 

will be re-convened to develop additional recommendations. 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-10 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

2.4 SUMMARIES OF THE ALTERNATIVES

2.4.1 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 

alternatives and their associated analyses are compared. Alternative A uses the terms “Greater SageGrouse 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 and reflected in Table 2-2 (land use restrictions) and Tables 

2-3 and 2-4 (oil and gas leasing stipulations). 

2.4.2 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

and reflected in Table 2-2 (land use restrictions) and Tables 2-3 and 2-4 (oil and gas leasing stipulations). 

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. 

2.4.3 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 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-11

Alternative C are presented in Table 2-1 and reflected in Table 2-2 (land use restrictions) and Tables 2-3 

and 2-4 (oil and gas leasing stipulations). 

2.4.4 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 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 and reflected in Table 2-2 

(land use restrictions) and Tables 2-3 and 2-4 (oil and gas leasing stipulations). 

2.4.5 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 Governor’s Executive Order (WY EO 

2011-05). Under this alternative, a surface disturbance cap of 5% per 640 acres is considered within sagegrouse core habitat. Alternative E uses the terms “Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat” or “core areas” as 

well as “priority habitat” if the management action is the same as Alternatives B or C. Management 

actions proposed under Alternative E are presented in Table 2-1 and reflected in Table 2-2 (land use 

restrictions) and Tables 2-3 and 2-4 (oil and gas leasing stipulations). 

2.5 MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

2.5.1 Management Goals for Alternatives A, D and E 

1. Conserve, recover, and enhance sage-grouse habitat on a landscape scale consistent with local, state, 

and federal management plans and policies, as practical, while providing for multiple use of BLMadministered lands and National Forest System lands. 

2. Maintain and/or increase sage-grouse abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing or 

restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend in cooperation with other state,

local, industry, permittee and conservation partners. 

2.5.2 Management Goal for Alternative B 

1. Maintain and/or increase sage-grouse abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing, or 

restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend in cooperation with other 

conservation partners. 

2.5.3 Management Goal for Alternative C 

1. Maintain and increase current sage-grouse abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing, or 

restoring the sagebrush ecosystem. 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-12 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

2.5.4 Management Objectives Common to All Action Alternatives 

1. In cooperation with State of Wyoming and its agencies, local governments, private landowners, local 

sage-grouse working groups, partners and stakeholders, develop site-specific conservation strategies 

to maintain or enhance sage-grouse habitats and habitat connectivity. 

2. Enhance quality/suitable habitat to support the expansion of sage-grouse populations on federallyadministered lands within the planning areas. 

3. Manage sage-grouse seasonal habitats and maintain habitat connectivity to support population 

objectives set by the State of Wyoming in cooperation with the agencies. 

4. Identify and prioritize opportunities for habitat enhancement and conservation within sage-grouse 

core habitat areas based on threats and the ability to manage sage-grouse habitat. 

5. Restore native (or desirable) plants and create landscape patterns which most benefit sage-grouse. 

6. Develop specific objectives to conserve, enhance or restore sage-grouse priority habitat based on 

Ecological Site Descriptions (ESD) (Forest Service may use other methods) and BLM land health 

evaluations (including within wetland and riparian areas) taking into account site history (historic 

treatments or habitat manipulations) that have changed the soil chemistry possibly altering the ESD. 

If an effective grazing system that meets sage-grouse habitat requirements is not already in place, 

analyze at least one alternative that conserves, restores, or enhances sage-grouse habitat in the NEPA 

document prepared for grazing management (Doherty et al. 2011b, Williams et al. 2011). 

7. Establish measurable objectives related to sage-grouse habitat from baseline monitoring data, ESDs 

(Forest Service may use other methods), or land health assessments/evaluations. 

8. Manage for vegetation composition and structure consistent with ecological site potential (Forest 

Service may use other methods) to achieve sage-grouse seasonal habitat objectives. 

9. Incorporate available site information collected using the Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment 

Framework or similar methods to evaluate existing resource conditions and to develop any necessary 

resource solutions in cooperation with State of Wyoming and its agencies, the local governments, 

private landowners, project proponents, partners, and stakeholders. 

10. Incorporate management practices that will provide for maintenance and/or enhancement of sagegrouse habitats, including specific attention to maintenance of desired understories of sagebrush plant 

communities. When developing objectives for residual cover and species diversity, identify the 

ecological site types within the planning area and refer to the appropriate ESDs (Forest Service may 

use other methods). 

11. In determining appropriate management actions that will be considered, refer to the document, 

“Grazing Influence, Management, and Objective Development in Wyoming's Greater Sage-Grouse 

Habitat” (Cagney et al. 2010) for guidance. 

2.5.5 Management Objectives for Alternative B 

1. Protect priority sage-grouse habitats from anthropogenic disturbances that will reduce distribution or 

abundance of sage-grouse. 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-13

2. Manage wild horse and burro population levels within established Appropriate Management Levels 

(AML). 

3. Prioritize wild horse and burro gathers in sage-grouse priority habitat, unless removals are necessary 

in other areas to prevent catastrophic environmental issues, including herd health impacts. 

4. Write specific land use plan objectives for vegetation that connects habitats and creates patterns that 

benefit sage-grouse. Write specific vegetation management objectives relative to invasive annual 

grass spread and woody plant removal where these are of concern in sage-grouse habitat. Consider 

management objectives in buffers around intact priority habitats that detect and rapidly respond to 

invasions in the buffer zones. 

2.5.6 Management Sub-Objectives for Alternative B 

1. Designate priority sage-grouse habitats for each WAFWA management zone (Stiver et al. 2006) 

across the current geographic range of sage-grouse that are large enough to stabilize populations in 

the short term and enhance populations over the long term. 

2. To maintain or increase current populations, manage or restore priority areas so that at least 70% of 

the land cover provides adequate sagebrush habitat to meet sage-grouse needs. 

3. Develop quantifiable habitat and population objectives with WAFWA and other conservation partners 

at the management zone and/or other appropriate scales. Develop a monitoring and adaptive 

management strategy to track whether these objectives are being met, and allow for revisions to 

management approaches if they are not. 

4. An additional objective will be designated for the priority area to prioritize and reclaim/restore 

anthropogenic disturbances so that 3% or less of the total priority habitat area is disturbed within 10 

years. 

5. Quantify and delineate general habitat for capability to provide connectivity among priority areas 

(Knick and Hanser 2011). 

6. Conserve, enhance, or restore sage-grouse habitat and connectivity (Knick and Hanser 2011) to 

promote movement and genetic diversity, with emphasis on those habitats occupied by sage-grouse. 

7. Enhance general sage-grouse habitat such that population declines in one area are replaced elsewhere 

within the habitat. 

8. Assess general sage-grouse habitats to determine potential to replace lost priority habitat caused by 

perturbations and/or disturbances and provide connectivity (Knick and Hanser 2011) between priority 

areas. These habitats should be given some priority over other general sage-grouse habitats that 

provide marginal or substandard sage-grouse habitat. 

9. Restore historical habitat functionality to support sage-grouse populations guided by objectives to 

maintain or enhance connectivity. Total area and locations will be determined at the Land Use Plan 

level. 

2.5.7 Management Objectives for Alternative C 

1. Restore and maintain sagebrush steppe to its ecological potential in occupied sage-grouse habitat. 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-14 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

2. Establish a system of sagebrush reserves to anchor recovery efforts by protecting the highest quality 

habitats. 

3. Develop and implement methods for prioritizing and restoring sagebrush steppe invaded by nonnative plants. 

4. Encourage partners to monitor effects of retiring grazing permits in sage-grouse habitat. 

5. Any oil, gas, or geothermal activity will be conducted to maximize avoidance of impacts, based on 

evolving scientific knowledge of impacts. 

6. Manage wild horse and burro population levels within established Appropriate Management Levels 

(AML). 

7. Prioritize wild horse gathers in sage-grouse priority habitat, unless removals are necessary in other 

areas to prevent catastrophic environmental issues, including herd health impacts. 

8. Establish a system of sagebrush reserves to anchor recovery efforts by protecting the highest quality 

habitats. 

2.5.8 Management Objectives for Alternatives D and E 

1. Identify core/priority, general, and connectivity habitats for each WAFWA MZ across the current 

geographic range of Greater Sage-Grouse that are large enough to stabilize populations in the short 

term and enhance populations over the long term. Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in this planning area 

overlaps 2 WAFWA MZs: (1) MZ I-Great Plains and (2) MZ II-Wyoming Basin. 

2. Protect core/priority, general, and connectivity habitats from anthropogenic disturbance that will 

reduce distribution or abundance of Greater Sage-Grouse. 

2.6 DETAILED COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 2-1 lists the management actions proposed under each alternative, organized by resource or 

resource management program. Similar actions are presented in the same row and assigned a unique 

identification or action number to aide in commenting. Some management actions are common to 

multiple alternatives, whereas others vary by alternative. 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-15

Table 2-1. Detailed Comparison of Alternatives 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

General Management Direction for Action Alternatives

1 Continue to support the development of statewide sage-grouse seasonal habitat models for the State of Wyoming. 

2 Field Offices and Ranger Districts will work with project proponents, partners, and stakeholders to avoid or minimize 

impacts and/or implement direct mitigation (e.g., relocating disturbance, timing restrictions, etc.), and utilize BMPs 

and off-site compensatory mitigation where appropriate.

3 Utilize the Wyoming Sage-grouse Implementation Team (SGIT) and Local Working Group plans or other state or 

cooperatively-developed plans, analyses, and other sources of information to guide development of conservation 

objectives for local management of sage-grouse habitats. The BLM and Forest Service will collaborate with the 

State of Wyoming and appropriate federal agencies to develop appropriate conservation objectives. The BLM and 

Forest Service will collaborate with appropriate federal and state agencies as contemplated under the Governor’s 

Executive Order 2013-3 in defining a framework for evaluating situations to determine if a significant causal 

relationship exists between improper grazing (by wildlife, wild horses, or livestock) and Greater Sage-Grouse 

conservation objectives where conservation objectives are not being achieved on federal land.

4 Include the collection of baseline data and outline post-project monitoring components into project planning, as 

appropriate and necessary.

5 The BLM/Forest Service will coordinate new recommendations, mitigation, and conservation measures applied for 

sage-grouse with the WGFD and other appropriate agencies, local government cooperators, and the Wyoming 

SGIT. These measures will be analyzed in site-specific NEPA documents, as necessary.

6 Apply appropriate seasonal restrictions for implementing vegetation management treatments according to the type 

of seasonal habitats present in a priority area. Vegetation treatments must include monitoring to determine 

achievement of objectives and their long-term success.

7 Ensure site-specific, measurable, conservation and mitigation objectives are included in project planning within 

sage-grouse habitats.

8 Each BLM field office and Forest Service planning unit will develop landscape-scale restoration, conservation, and 

maintenance strategies, including special management of seasonal habitats and identified connectivity zones 

outside of Greater Sage-Grouse core/priority habitat areas, working with voluntary partners and cooperating 

agencies. These strategies must be coordinated and reconciled with adjoining management entities that share 

habitats or populations.

9 Design all range projects in a manner that minimizes potential for invasive species establishment. Monitor and treat 

invasive species associated with existing range improvements.

10 Apply required design features (Appendix B) as mandatory Stipulations/Conditions of Approval (COAs) within 

priority/core sage-grouse habitat for fluid minerals, travel management, lands and realty, range management, wild 

horses and burro, solid leasable minerals (coal), locatable minerals, West Nile Virus, mineral materials, non-energy 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-16 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

solid leasable minerals, vegetation management, fire and fuels management, and noise.

11 Integrated vegetation management would be used to control, suppress, and eradicate, where possible, noxious and 

invasive species per BLM Handbook H-1740-2 and Forest Service Manual 2080.

12 Existing notices and approved plans of operations under 43 CFR 38091: For projects that overlap priority/core 

habitat areas, operators may be requested to submit modifications to the accepted notice or approved plan of 

operations so that the operations minimally impact core area habitats. The AO may convey to the operator 

suggested conservation measures, based upon the notice or plan level operations and the geographic area of those 

operations (also called the project area, which is defined by the BLM in 43 CFR 3809.5 and the Forest Service in 36 

CFR 228.3). These suggested conservation measures include measures that support the overall goals and 

objectives of the priority/core population area strategy and may not be reasonable or applicable to the BLM/Forest 

Service’s determination of whether the proposed operations will cause unnecessary or undue degradation under 43 

CFR 3809.5 or likely cause a significant disturbance of surface resources under 36 CFR 228.4. The request 

containing the suggested conservation measures must make clear that the operator’s compliance is not mandatory. 

Notices or plans of operation, or modifications thereto, submitted following the issuance of this guidance: As part of 

the 15-day completeness review of notices (or modifications thereto) and 30-day completeness review of plans of 

operations (or modifications thereto), the proposed project area(s) where exploration, development, mining, access 

and reclamation would take place should be reviewed for overlap of sage-grouse priority/core habitat areas in the 

corporate GIS database. If there is overlap, the BLM/Forest Service AO may notify the operator of ways that they 

may minimize impacts to core area habitats and request the operator to amend its notice or plan to include such 

measures. The request to amend the submitted notice or plan of operations must make clear that the operator’s 

compliance is not mandatory and that including such measures is not a requirement for completeness of either the 

notice or a plan of operations, nor is it a condition of acceptance of the notice or approval of the plan of operations.

13 As new occupied sage-grouse habitat is found or occurs either through additional inventories or expansion into 

previously unoccupied habitat, the agencies will incorporate these areas into the general sage-grouse habitat 

category and manage them as such, until the earliest review occurs by the SGIT. At that time they will be 

considered for priority/core habitat status or continue to be managed as general habitat, and will be added to the

statewide Map at that time.

14 Contribute to actions that help to ground-truth the statewide sage-grouse seasonal habitat models for the State of 

Wyoming.

15 Use the Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Framework or best available assessment tool (approved by the 

AO/Responsible Official) when assessing or evaluating sage-grouse habitats at multiple scales.

16 The official Wyoming sage-grouse lek database is maintained by the WGFD in accordance with Appendix 4B of the 

Umbrella Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the WGFD and BLM/Forest Service (WGFD and BLM 

1990). 

 

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

processing operations on mill sites The location and maintenance of claims and sites are regulated under 43 CFR Subpart 3830. 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-17

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

The MOU states that agencies will meet at least annually to coordinate and review the accuracy of data, and 

incorporate the most up-to-date information.

17 Many sage-grouse seasonal habitats within and outside of core habitat areas are encumbered by valid existing 

rights, such as mineral leases or existing rights-of-way. Fluid mineral leases often will include less stringent lease 

stipulations than the timing, distance, and density requirements identified for consideration in this plan. Agencies 

(BLM/Forest Service) will work with proponents holding valid existing leases that include less stringent lease 

stipulations than the timing, distance, and density restrictions described within this plan to ensure that measurable 

sage-grouse conservation objectives (such as, but not limited to, consolidation of infrastructure to reduce habitat 

fragmentation and loss, and effective conservation of seasonal habitats and habitat connectivity to support 

management objectives set by the WGFD) are included in all project proposals.

18 Limit motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails at a minimum, until such time as travel 

management planning is complete and routes are either designated or closed within sage-grouse priority/core 

habitats.

19 Complete activity-level travel plans within five years of the ROD for this planning effort. During activity level 

planning, where appropriate, designate routes in priority habitat with current administrative/agency purpose or need 

to administrative access only. Existing plans should be assessed for consistency with sage-grouse conservation 

objectives.

20 Construct roads needed for production activities to minimum design standards within sage-grouse priority/core 

habitats, in compliance with the Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT).

21 Field Office and Ranger District staff will work with project proponents (including those within the BLM/Forest 

Service) and the WGFD to site their projects in locations that meet the purpose and need for their project, but have 

been determined to contain the least sensitive habitats whether inside or outside of sage-grouse priority/core 

habitat areas.

22 Evaluate opportunities to coordinate management plans and strategies on multiple allotments where coordination 

under a single management plan/strategy would result in enhancing Greater Sage-Grouse populations or its 

habitat, as determined in coordination with the state wildlife agency and with project proponents, partners, and 

stakeholders.

23 The Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse 9-Plan LUP Amendments will include the requirement for the development of 

EIS/project level adaptive management strategies in support of the population management objectives for Greater 

Sage-Grouse set by the State of Wyoming (State of WY EO 2011-05). These adaptive management strategies will 

be developed in partnership with the WGFD, project proponents, partners, and stakeholders and will incorporate the 

best available science. The purpose of these strategies is to address localized Greater Sage-Grouse population 

declines by providing the framework in which management will be changed if monitoring identifies significant 

negative population impacts.

24 The Wyoming BLM typically manages the public lands to meet the State of Wyoming’s wildlife population 

objectives. The current population objective is to maintain at least 67% of the 2005-2008 Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Area Population within the State of Wyoming.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-18 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

The Wyoming BLM and Forest Service will coordinate with the State of Wyoming in implementation planning to 

develop a statewide adaptive management plan and a framework to evaluate causal factors. The adaptive 

management plan will identify adaptive management triggers; indicators to be measured; and appropriate effective 

mitigation, restoration, and reclamation actions, including targets and benchmarks for responses. The plan will 

include both short-term and long-term monitoring. The adaptive management plan will guide the development of 

project-level adaptive management strategies.

25 All existing LUP decisions will be retained unless vacated or modified by decisions in this plan amendment.

26 Fire and fuels management would contribute to the protection and enhancement of sagebrush habitat that support 

Greater Sage-Grouse populations (including large contiguous blocks of sagebrush).

27 BLM and Forest Service planning units (Districts and Forests), in coordination with the USFWS and relevant state 

agencies, by December 2014, would complete and continue to update Greater Sage-Grouse Landscape Wildfire & 

Invasive Species Habitat Assessments to prioritize at-risk habitats, and identify fuels management, preparedness, 

suppression and restoration priorities necessary to maintain sagebrush habitat to support interconnecting Greater 

Sage-Grouse populations. These assessments and subsequent assessment updates would also be a coordinated 

effort with an interdisciplinary team to take into account other Greater Sage-Grouse priorities identified in this plan.

Appendix J describes a minimal framework example and suggested approach for this assessment.

Implementation actions will be tiered to the Local (District/Forest) Greater Sage-Grouse Landscape Wildfire & 

Invasive Species Assessment using the best available science related to the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse.

In coordination with USFWS and relevant state agencies, BLM/Forest Service planning units (Districts/Forests) will 

identify annual treatment needs for wildfire and invasive species management as identified in local unit level 

Landscape Wildfire and Invasive Species Assessments. Annual treatment needs will be coordinated across 

state/regional scales and across jurisdictional boundaries for long-term conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse.

These landscape assessment implementation efforts will be reviewed annually with appropriate USFWS and state 

agency personnel.

28 Implement a coordinated inter-agency approach to fire restrictions based upon National Fire Danger Rating System 

(NFDRS) thresholds (fuel conditions, drought conditions, and predicted weather patterns) for Greater Sage-Grouse

habitat.

29 Within acceptable risk levels, utilize a full range of fire management strategies and tactics, including the 

management of wildfires to achieve resource objectives across the range of sage-grouse habitat consistent with

land use plan direction.

Lands and Realty Management

Rights-of-Way (e.g., Power lines, Transmission, Wind Energy Projects)

30 Portions of sage-grouse 

core habitat areas would 

be managed as ROW 

exclusion areas (Map 2-9).

Priority sage-grouse 

habitat areas would be 

managed as exclusion 

areas for new BLM ROW 

Sage-grouse priority and 

general habitat areas 

would be managed as 

ROW exclusion areas for 

Sage-grouse core habitat 

areas would be managed 

as ROW exclusion areas 

for new ROW or SUA 

Sage-grouse core habitat 

areas would be managed 

as ROW avoidance areas 

for new ROW or SUA 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-19

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

or Forest Service Special 

Use Authorization (SUA) 

permits (Map 2-10). 

Consider the following 

exceptions:

1. Within designated 

ROW or SUA corridors 

encumbered by existing 

ROW or SUA 

authorizations, new 

ROWs could be colocated only if the entire 

footprint of the 

proposed project 

(including construction 

and staging) can be 

completed within the 

existing disturbance 

associated with the 

authorized ROWs or 

SUAs.

2. Subject to valid, 

existing rights where 

new ROWs or SUAs 

associated with valid 

existing rights are 

required, new ROWs or 

SUAs would be colocated within existing 

ROWs or SUAs or 

where it best minimizes 

sage-grouse impacts. 

Existing roads or 

realignments, as 

described above, would 

be used to access valid 

existing rights that are 

not yet developed. If 

valid existing rights 

cannot be accessed via 

existing roads, any new 

new ROW or SUA permits 

(Map 2-11). 

Consider the following 

exceptions:

1. Within designated 

ROW or SUA corridors 

encumbered by existing 

ROW or SUA 

authorizations, new 

ROWs and SUAs could 

be co-located only if the 

entire footprint of the 

proposed project 

(including construction 

and staging) can be 

completed within the 

existing disturbance 

associated with the 

authorized ROWs or 

SUAs.

2. Subject to valid, 

existing rights where 

new ROWs or SUAs 

associated with valid 

existing rights are 

required, new ROWs 

and SUAs would be colocated within existing 

ROWs or SUAs or 

where it best minimizes 

sage-grouse impacts. 

Existing roads or 

realignments, as 

described above, would 

be used to access valid 

existing rights that are 

not yet developed. If 

valid existing rights 

cannot be accessed via 

existing roads, any new 

road would be 

permits (Map 2-12). 

Consider the following 

exceptions:

1. Within designated 

ROW corridors 

encumbered by existing 

ROW or SUA 

authorizations, new 

ROWs and SUAs could 

be co-located within the 

designated corridors.

2. Subject to valid existing 

rights including nonfederal land inholdings, 

required new ROWs 

and SUAs would be colocated within existing 

ROWs or SUAs or 

where it best minimizes 

sage-grouse impacts. 

Existing roads or 

realignments, as 

described above, would 

be used to access valid 

existing rights that are 

not yet developed.

3. If valid existing rights 

cannot be accessed via 

existing roads, any new 

road would be 

constructed to the 

absolute minimum 

standard necessary, 

and the surface 

disturbance would be 

added to the total 

disturbance in the core

habitat area. If that 

disturbance exceeds 

9% for that area, 

additional effective 

permits (Map 2-13). 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-20 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

road would be 

constructed to the 

absolute minimum 

standard necessary, 

and the surface 

disturbance would be 

added to the total 

disturbance in the 

priority area. If that 

disturbance exceeds 

3% for that area, 

additional effective 

mitigation would be 

evaluated and 

implemented on a 

case-by-case basis to 

offset the resulting loss 

of sage-grouse habitat.

constructed to the 

absolute minimum 

standard necessary, 

and the surface 

disturbance would be 

added to the total 

disturbance in the 

priority area. If that 

disturbance exceeds 

3% for that area, 

additional mitigation 

that has been 

demonstrated to be 

effective would be used 

to offset the resulting 

loss of sage-grouse 

habitat.

mitigation necessary to 

offset the resulting loss 

of sage-grouse would 

be used. If such a ROW 

or SUA is subsequently 

relinquished, the AO 

would require the 

holder to complete

reclamation with 

objective of ensuring 

reestablishment of prior 

affected sage-grouse 

habitat.

31 Portions of sage-grouse 

general habitat areas 

would be managed as 

ROW avoidance areas 

(Map 2-9).

General sage-grouse 

habitat areas would be 

managed as avoidance 

areas for new ROWs or 

SUAs, except for areas 

currently managed as 

ROW exclusion areas (2-

10).

Within general sagegrouse habitat where new 

ROWs/SUAs are 

necessary, new 

ROWs/SUAs would be colocated within existing 

ROWs/SUAs where 

technically feasible.

No similar action General sage-grouse 

habitat areas would be 

available for new ROWs 

or SUAs, subject to BMPs.

In addition to 

Alternative A:

Within general sagegrouse habitat where new 

ROWs/SUAs are 

necessary, new 

ROWs/SUAs would be colocated within existing 

ROWs/SUAs where 

technically feasible.

Appropriate sage-grouse 

seasonal timing 

constraints would be 

applied.

32 Sage-grouse core and 

connectivity habitat 

areas:

Casper RMP:

No new corridor 

designations would be 

Sage-grouse priority and 

connectivity habitat 

areas: 

New transmission 

corridors would not be 

authorized.

No similar action Sage-grouse core and 

connectivity habitat 

areas: 

New transmission projects 

would be allowed in 

existing designated utility 

Sage-grouse core and 

connectivity habitat 

areas: 

In addition to 

Alternative A:

New transmission projects 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-21

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

made in Bates Hole. When 

placement of a major ROW 

facility within a designated 

corridor is not possible, 

and for smaller ROW and 

other linear facilities, 

placement would be 

adjacent to existing 

facilities or disturbances. 

Cross- country placement 

of ROW and other linear 

facilities would be allowed 

only when placement in a 

designated corridor or 

adjacent to an existing 

facility is not practical or 

feasible. The extent of all 

surface disturbances would 

be minimized.

No new corridors would be 

established in the Sand 

Hills Management Area 

(MA); ROWs would be 

allowed when management 

objectives for the area can 

still be achieved.

All currently designated 

corridors would be 

maintained All special 

restrictions that apply to 

types of use/facilities on 

the corridors would be 

removed, except as noted 

for the Oregon Trail Road 

ROW Corridor, Segment A. 

The corridors include 

351,020 acres, of which 

94,580 acres are federal 

surface. The widths/size of 

designated corridors would 

not change. Special 

New above-ground 

transmission structures 

would be prohibited both 

inside and outside existing 

corridors.

corridors (i.e., West Wide 

Energy Corridor, RMPs, 

etc.).

New transmission projects 

would be allowed within 

the proposed 2-mile wide 

transmission line corridor 

through sage-grouse core 

habitat population areas in 

south-central and 

southwestern Wyoming 

(see Map 2-15 from EO 

2011-5).

New transmission lines 

would be authorized if 

they are constructed 

within the 2-mile wide 

corridor between July 1 

and March 14 (or between 

July 1 and November 30 

in sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas).

In addition, new 

transmission lines would 

be authorized if they are 

constructed between July 

1 and March 14 (or 

between July 1 and 

November 30 in sagegrouse winter 

concentration areas) and 

within one half mile either 

side of existing 115 kV or 

larger transmission lines.

New transmission projects 

may be constructed 

outside the 2-mile wide 

corridor and the one-mile 

wide corridor mentioned 

above, in consideration of 

other resources, when it 

would be allowed within 

the 2-mile wide 

transmission line route 

through sage-grouse core 

habitat population areas in 

south-central and 

southwestern Wyoming 

(see Map 2-15 from EO 

2011-5) and within 0.5

mile on either side of 

existing 115 kV or larger 

transmission lines 

(creating a route no wider 

than 1 mile). Projects in 

designated corridors and 

along these routes will not 

be counted against the 5%

disturbance cap (Wyoming 

Density and Disturbance 

Calculation Tool Manual).

New transmission projects 

proposed outside of these 

areas would be 

considered where it can 

be demonstrated that 

declines in sage-grouse 

populations could be 

avoided through project 

design and/or mitigation.

In conducting review of 

power line transmission 

proposals, the use of the 

Framework for Sagegrouse Impacts Analysis 

for Interstate Transmission 

Lines or other appropriate 

documents are necessary.

These transmission and 

distributions lines should 

be sited to minimize 

any potential impact on 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-22 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

restrictions applying to 

types of use/facilities on 

the corridors would be 

removed on a case-bycase basis. Existing 

corridors include:

1. Oregon Trail Road 

Corridor, Segment A

2. Oregon Trail Road 

Corridor, Segment B

3. Oregon Trail Road 

Corridor, Segment C

4. Poison Spider/Gas Hills 

Road Corridor

5. Highway 20-26 Corridor

6. Wyoming Highway 

259/U.S. 87 Corridor

7. Wyoming Highway 387 

Corridor

8. Lost Cabin-Arminto 

Road Corridor

9. RMP Change No. 2012-

03: included the

10.West wide Energy 

Corridor

11.Cabin Creek Corridor

12.Existing Oregon Trail 

Road ROW Corridor, 

Segment A

Oregon Trail Road ROW 

Corridor, Segment A allows 

additional ROW facilities 

provided they are 

subsurface, surface, or low 

profile developments. 

ROW facilities that 

introduce visual intrusions 

on the skyline along the 

corridor would not be 

allowed. Special 

restrictions applying to 

can be demonstrated that 

the activity will not cause 

declines in sage-grouse 

populations through 

project design and/or 

mitigation.

sage-grouse or their 

habitats, and must 

consider siting along or 

adjacent to existing longterm linear disturbance 

features whenever 

possible (i.e., along 

existing occupied above 

ground utilities, roads).

New projects within sagegrouse core habitats that 

may require future 

distribution and 

transmission lines would 

include the proposed 

distribution and 

transmission lines in their 

DDCT as part of the 

proposed disturbance.

Lines permitted but not 

located in the above 

mentioned routes or a 

designated corridor will be 

counted towards the 5%

disturbance 

calculation (line 

disturbance is equal to 

ROW width multiplied by 

length and includes all 

access roads, staging 

areas, and other surface 

disturbance associated 

with construction outside 

of the ROW).

New Distribution Lines:

New electric distribution 

lines would be buried

where feasible. If not 

feasible, overhead lines 

would be located at least 

0.6 miles from the 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-23

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

types of use/facilities on 

the corridors would be 

removed on a case-bycase basis, and a new 

corridor, to be called the 

Cabin Creek Corridor, 

would be designated. 

Future Corridor 

Adjustments and New 

Corridor Designations:

Future corridor 

adjustments and new 

corridor designations would 

be made only when facility 

placement within an 

existing designated 

corridor is incompatible, 

unfeasible, or impractical 

and when the 

environmental 

consequences can be 

adequately mitigated. 

Problems of technical 

compatibility between 

facilities and spacing of 

facilities in corridors would 

be solved on a case-bycase basis. Special 

restrictions applying to 

types of use/facilities on 

the corridors would be 

removed on a case-bycase basis.

South Bighorns/Red Wall 

Management Area:

No corridors would be 

designated; however, 

ROWs would be allowed 

on a case-by-case basis 

when management 

objectives for the area 

perimeter of occupied 

Greater Sage-Grouse leks 

and raptor perch 

deterrents would be 

installed.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-24 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

could still be achieved.

Kemmerer RMP:

Utility corridors would be 

designated, based on use 

(i.e., power lines, pipelines, 

and fiber optic lines).

Preferred utility corridors 

would be 2 miles wide 

(width would be 

determined based on 

resource values) and 

designated as follows, but 

variances would be 

allowed based on 

application where conflicts 

with other resources were 

minimal or could be 

mitigated through 

resource-specific 

stipulations:

High-voltage power line 

corridors would be 

established north of and 

parallel to I-80, and along 

Wyoming SH 89 from the 

junction of I-80 and the 

Wyoming state line.

Fiber optic and low-voltage 

power line corridors would 

be located along currently 

established road systems 

(e.g., interstate or state 

highways and paved 

county roads).

Newcastle RMP:

Utility/transportation 

systems would be located 

adjacent to existing 

utility/transportation 

systems whenever 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-25

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

practical. Areas to be 

avoided for new facility 

placement and routes 

would be identified on a 

case-by-case basis, rather 

than attempting to 

establish utility corridors.

Pinedale RMP:

Utility facilities would be 

restricted to existing routes 

and designated corridors 

where practicable, 

including environmental 

and socioeconomic 

considerations. Corridor 

routes include U.S. 

Highways 189 and 191 and 

State Highways 189, 191, 

350, 351, 352, 353, and 

354. New corridors could 

be established as oil and 

gas fields are developed.

Rawlins RMP:

All BLM-administered 

public lands, except WSAs 

and some SD/MAs 

(including ACEC/SIAs), 

would be open to 

consideration for 

placement of utility ROW 

systems. Each utility ROW 

would be located adjacent 

to existing facilities, when 

possible. Areas with 

important or sensitive 

resource values would be 

avoided. 

Existing major 

transportation and utility 

ROW routes would be 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-26 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

designated corridors. 

However, major 

transportation routes within 

the planning area that are 

located east of the Carbon 

County-Albany County line 

would not be considered 

for ROW corridor 

designation because of the 

scattered public 

landownership pattern in 

the area. All corridors 

would be designated for 

power lines (above ground 

and buried), telephone 

lines, and fiber optic lines. 

Specific proposals would 

require site-specific 

environmental analysis and 

compliance with 

established permitting 

processes. 

Activities generally 

excluded from ROW 

corridors include mineral 

materials disposal, range 

and wildlife habitat 

improvements involving 

surface disturbance and 

facility construction, 

campgrounds, and public 

recreation facilities and 

other facilities that would 

attract public use. 

ROW facilities would not 

be placed adjacent to each 

other if issues with safety 

or incompatibility or 

resource conflicts were 

identified. The designated 

width, allowable uses, and 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-27

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

excluded uses for each 

corridor may be modified

during implementation of 

the Approved RMP. 

Green River RMP:

Areas designated as utility 

windows would be 

preferred locations for 

future grants. Five windows 

have been identified: 2 

east-west, 3 north-south. 

Other areas would be 

considered for rights-ofway on a case-by-case 

basis. Windows 0.5 mile in 

width have been identified 

for the placement of 

utilities. The northern eastwest window would be for 

underground facilities only, 

and the southern east-west 

window would be for both 

above and below ground 

facilities. A 0.5 mile wide 

north-south window on the 

west side of Flaming 

Gorge, a window south 

along Highway 430, and a 

north-south window along 

the east side of Flaming 

Gorge have been identified 

for above and below 

ground utilities.

Jack Morrow Hills 

Coordinated Activity Plan

(JMH CAP):

The planning area, with the 

exception of defined 

exclusion and avoidance 

areas, would be open to 

considering grants of 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-28 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

rights-of-way if area 

objectives could be met. 

Exclusion areas are closed 

to rights-of-way. Avoidance 

and special management 

areas not identified as 

exclusion areas would be 

open to consideration only 

after site-specific analysis 

demonstrates area 

objectives could be met 

(see glossary) in Greater 

Sage-Grouse potential 

nesting habitat.

TBNG LRMP:

Utility companies would be 

permitted to construct new 

utility corridors, unless 

prohibited by management 

direction. 

MBNF LRMP:

Current utility corridors 

would be fully utilized. 

Corridors would be 

provided in the future in 

areas that meet the needs 

of society while protecting 

the integrity of the 

environment. 

BTNF LRMP:

Within sage-grouse core 

habitat areas, disturbance 

would be limited by colocating roads, pipelines, 

gathering lines, and power 

lines for energy resource 

development.

New roads, pipelines, 

gathering lines, and 

technically required 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-29

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

overhead power lines 

would be routed in a 

manner as to minimize 

visual impacts and conform 

to approved corridors.

When these facilities leave 

corridors, they should be 

subordinate to the 

landscape.

33 No similar action Existing designated ROW 

corridors crossing sagegrouse priority habitat that 

are void of any authorized 

ROWs would be relocated 

outside of the priority 

habitat area. If relocation 

is not possible, the entire 

corridor would be 

undesignated during the 

planning process.

Same as Alternative B No similar action No similar action

34 Kemmerer RMP:

New utility lines would be 

buried or BLM-approved 

anti-perch devices would 

be installed on all new 

utility lines within 

sagebrush and/or semiarid 

shrub-dominated habitats, 

unless NEPA analysis 

shows little or no impact 

without burial or 

modification. 

BTNF LRMP:

Operations would be 

conducted in a manner that 

will offer the least possible 

disturbance to wildlife on or 

adjacent to the leased 

land.

No similar action ROWs would be amended 

to require features that 

enhance sage-grouse 

habitat security. 

Existing designated 

corridors in BLM ACECs 

and Forest Service

Special Areas could be 

accessed for 

maintenance.

Maintenance of existing 

structures would be 

allowed and upgrades 

would be considered, 

subject to BMPs.

Maintenance/ replacement 

of existing structures 

would be allowed subject 

to valid and existing rights.

Upgrades would be 

considered, subject to 

mandatory Required 

Design Features (RDF)

(Appendix B).

Existing guy wires should 

be removed or 

appropriately marked with 

bird flight diverters to 

make them more visible to 

sage-grouse in flight. 

Structures that provide 

less suitable perching 

opportunities for 

raptors/corvids should be 

installed (e.g., perch 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-30 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

deterrents or other antiperching devices), or 

existing towers should be 

retrofitted with perch 

deterrents to limit sagegrouse predation.

35 No similar action Opportunities to remove, 

bury, or modify existing 

power lines within priority 

sage-grouse habitat areas 

would be evaluated and 

taken advantage of. 

Where existing leases or 

ROWs or SUAs have had 

some level of 

development (e.g., road, 

fence, and well) and are 

no longer in use, the site 

would be reclaimed by 

removing these features 

and restoring the habitat.

Same as Alternative B No similar action Where existing 

authorizations, ROWs, or 

SUAs have had some 

level of development (e.g., 

road, fence, and well) and 

are expired and are no 

longer in use, the site 

would be reclaimed by 

removing these features 

and restoring the habitat.

In areas where existing 

facilities cannot be 

removed, buried, or 

modified, perch deterrents 

would be required.

Renewable Energy

36 Wind energy development 

would be allowed within 

sage-grouse core habitat 

areas, except in areas that 

are currently unavailable 

due to the need to protect 

sensitive resources 

(Map 2-29).

No similar action Wind energy development 

would be prohibited in 

sage-grouse priority and 

general habitat areas

(Map 2-31).

Wind energy development 

would be prohibited in 

sage-grouse core habitat 

areas (Map 2-32), unless 

it can be sufficiently 

demonstrated that the 

development activity 

would not result in 

declines of sage-grouse 

core habitat populations. 

Sufficient demonstration of 

“no declines” should be 

coordinated with the 

WGFD and USFWS. 

Areas that are currently 

unavailable due to the 

need to protect sensitive 

Same as Alternative D
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-31

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

resources would remain 

unavailable to wind energy 

development.

37 No similar action No similar action Wind energy development 

would be sited at least five 

miles from active sagegrouse leks.

No similar action No similar action

38 Kemmerer RMP:

New meteorological towers 

(MET) towers would be 

avoided within 1 mile of 

occupied sagebrush 

obligate habitats, unless 

anti-perch devices are 

installed. MET towers 

relying on guy wires for 

support would be 

prohibited in these 

habitats. Exceptions could 

be made if NEPA analysis 

shows little or no impact to 

sagebrush obligate 

species.

Rawlins RMP:

MET towers would be 

authorized on a case-bycase basis from 0.25 mile 

to 1 mile of an occupied 

Greater Sage-Grouse and 

sharp-tailed grouse lek. 

In addition to

Alternative A:

MET towers would be 

prohibited in sage-grouse 

priority habitat areas.

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A In addition to 

Alternative A:

The use of guy wires for 

MET tower supports would 

be avoided within sagegrouse core habitat areas. 

All existing and any new 

unavoidable guy wires 

should be marked with 

recommended bird 

deterrent devices.

The siting of new 

temporary MET towers 

within sage-grouse core 

habitat areas would be 

avoided within 2 miles of 

active sage-grouse leks, 

unless they are out of the 

direct line of sight of the 

active lek.

39 No similar action No similar action Industrial solar projects 

would be prohibited in 

ACECs and occupied 

sage-grouse habitats.

No similar action No similar action

Land Tenure Adjustments (Acquisitions, Land Exchanges, Transfers and Sales)

40 Casper RMP:

224,830 acres of public 

lands are identified as 

The BLM Forest Service

would retain public 

ownership of sage-grouse 

Same as Alternative B, 

without exceptions for 

disposal to consolidate 

The BLM/Forest Service

would retain ownership of 

sage-grouse core habitats 

The BLM/Forest Service

would retain public 

ownership of sage-grouse 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-32 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

potentially suitable for 

disposal. At the 

implementation stage, sitespecific analysis with public 

participation will be

conducted. Based on the 

analysis and public 

comments received, a 

determination will be made 

on whether disposal of the 

parcel is in the public’s 

best interest. If it is not in 

the public’s best interest, 

the parcel will be retained 

in public ownership. 

Restricted Disposal –

dispose of 5,450 acres on 

a restricted basis.

Allow land-use 

authorizations under 

FLPMA Section 302(b) 

leases and permits to meet 

public demand.

Evaluate on a case-bycase basis as proposals 

are presented. Potential 

lease and permit areas 

may include, but are not 

limited to the following:

1. Areas where there are 

documented or existing 

trespass facilities that 

can be resolved by an 

authorization under this 

section

2. Areas along major 

highways where 

developments may 

facilitate public needs

3. Areas in or adjacent to 

residential, agricultural, 

priority habitat. 

Exceptions would be 

considered where there is 

mixed ownership and land 

exchanges would allow for 

additional or more 

contiguous federal 

ownership patterns within 

the sage-grouse priority 

habitat area.

Under sage-grouse priority 

habitat areas with minority 

federal ownership, an 

additional, effective 

mitigation agreement 

would be included for any 

disposal of federal land. 

As a final preservation 

measure, consideration 

should be given to 

pursuing a permanent 

conservation easement.

ownership that would be 

beneficial to sage-grouse.

unless economic or other 

benefits are determined.

core habitat. 

Exceptions would be 

considered where there is 

mixed ownership and land 

exchanges would allow for 

additional or more 

contiguous federal 

ownership patterns within 

sage-grouse core habitat 

areas.

For sage-grouse core 

habitat areas with minority 

federal ownership, an 

additional, effective 

mitigation agreement 

would be included for any 

disposal of federal land. 

As a final preservation 

measure, consideration 

should be given to 

pursuing a permanent 

conservation easement.
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-33

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

commercial, or industrial 

developments

The BLM will pursue 

acquisition of lands and 

interest in lands in the 

South Bighorns/Red Wall 

area.

41 Casper RMP:

The BLM would pursue 

acquisition of lands and 

interest in lands in the 

Bolton Creek Drainage and 

Bates Creek areas.

Areas where acquisitions 

(including subsurface 

mineral rights) or 

conservation easements 

would benefit sage-grouse 

habitat would be identified

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative B

42 No similar action Where suitable 

conservation actions 

cannot be achieved, the 

BLM/Forest Service would 

seek to acquire state and 

private lands with intact 

subsurface mineral estate 

or BLM/National Forest 

System Lands that need 

subsurface mineral estate 

by donation, purchase or 

exchange in order to best 

conserve, enhance or 

restore sage-grouse 

habitat.

The BLM/Forest Service

would strive to acquire 

important private lands in 

BLM-designated ACECs 

and Forest Service SageGrouse Special Areas. 

Acquisition will be 

prioritized over 

easements.

The BLM/Forest Service

would acquire lands based 

on a variety of economic 

resources criteria. 

Land exchanges outside 

of sage-grouse core 

habitat would be 

considered if lands can be 

exchanged for lands within 

sage-grouse core habitat.

Sage-grouse habitat 

requirements would be 

utilized to prioritize parcels 

for exchange or

acquisition within core 

habitat areas.

43 No similar action In priority habitat, 

withdrawal proposals not 

associated with mineral 

activity would not be 

approved unless the land 

management is consistent 

with sage-grouse 

conservation measures. 

(For example, in a 

proposed withdrawal for a 

military training range 

Withdrawal proposals not 

associated with mineral 

activity would not be 

approved unless the land 

management is consistent 

with sage-grouse 

conservation measures. 

(For example, in a 

proposed withdrawal for a 

military training range 

buffer area, the buffer 

No similar action Within core habitat, nonmineral withdrawals would 

be evaluated to determine 

if the withdrawal action is 

consistent with sagegrouse conservation.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-34 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

buffer area, the buffer 

area would be managed 

with sage-grouse 

conservation measures.)

area would be managed 

with sage-grouse 

conservation measures 

that have been 

demonstrated to be 

effective.)

Livestock Grazing Management

44 The BLM policy in WO-IM2009-007 and BLM 

Handbook H-4180-1 and a 

National Forest’s LRMP or 

allotment specific NEPA 

decision for the Forest 

Service would be used to 

evaluate land health 

standards achievement in 

sage-grouse core habitats 

and, where not achieved, 

to determine if existing 

grazing management 

practices or levels of 

grazing use on public lands 

are significant factors in 

failing to achieve the 

standards and conform 

with the guidelines, which 

through this process will 

identify appropriate actions 

to address nonachievement and nonconformance.

When determining 

appropriate actions to 

address non-achievement 

of land health standards 

and non-conformance with 

the guidelines due to 

existing grazing 

management practices or 

levels of grazing use, 

Allotments not meeting 

standards due to livestock 

grazing in sage-grouse 

priority habitat would 

incorporate a light grazing 

management strategy 

utilizing a 20-30% forage 

allocation for livestock.

Livestock grazing would 

be prohibited within sagegrouse priority habitat.

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-35

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

management actions 

including but not limited to 

the following would be 

considered singly or in 

combination:

1. Season or timing of use

2. Numbers of livestock 

(includes temporary 

non-use or livestock 

removal)

3. Distribution of livestock 

use

4. Intensity of use 

(utilization or stubble 

height objectives)

5. Kind of livestock (e.g., 

cattle, sheep, horses, 

llamas, alpacas and 

goats)

6. Class of livestock (e.g., 

yearlings versus cow 

calf pairs)

7. Refer to the document, 

“Grazing Influence, 

Management, and 

Objective Development 

in Wyoming's Greater 

Sage-Grouse Habitat” 

(Cagney et al. 2010) for 

guidance when 

considering appropriate 

management actions to 

achieve conformance. 

45 No similar action In priority habitat, the 

BLM/Forest Service would 

work cooperatively on 

integrated ranch planning 

within sage-grouse habitat 

so operations with deeded 

No similar action The BLM/Forest Service

would work cooperatively 

with permittees, lessees,

and other landowners to 

develop grazing 

management strategies on 

The BLM/Forest Service

would work cooperatively 

with permittees, lessees,

and other landowners to 

develop voluntary grazing 

management strategies 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-36 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

BLM and/or Forest 

Service allotments can be 

planned as single units.

an allotment-by-allotment 

basis to improve sagegrouse habitat.

that integrate both public 

and private lands into 

single management units 

to improve sage-grouse

habitat.

Livestock Grazing Permit Monitoring

46 Casper RMP:

Grazing leases would be 

adjusted where an 

evaluation of monitoring, 

field observations, or other 

data indicate changes, and 

either increases or 

decreases, in forage 

allocation are needed or 

when necessary or 

required by other 

applicable law or 

regulation.

Kemmerer RMP:

Vegetative communities 

would be managed in 

accordance with Wyoming 

Standards for Healthy 

Rangelands. 

Appropriate livestock 

grazing management 

actions would be 

developed and integrated 

to address rangeland 

health standards, improve 

forage for livestock, and 

enhance rangeland health. 

Newcastle RMP:

Any adjustments in 

livestock grazing use would 

be made as a result of 

monitoring and 

consultation with grazing 

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

Measureable objectives 

would be monitored and 

grazing management 

would be evaluated to 

assure that management 

actions are achieving 

sage-grouse habitat 

objectives.

When conducting land 

health assessments, 

indicators and 

measurements of 

structure, condition, and 

composition of vegetation 

specific to achieving sagegrouse habitat objectives 

would be included. If 

local/state seasonal 

habitat objectives are not 

available, sage-grouse 

habitat recommendations 

from Connelly et al. 2000b 

and Hagen et al. 2007 

would be used

Completion of land health 

assessments (Forest 

Service may use other 

analyses) and processing 

grazing permits within 

sage-grouse priority 

habitat areas would be 

prioritized. This process 

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

Measureable objectives 

would be monitored and 

grazing management 

would be evaluated to 

assure that management 

actions are achieving 

sage-grouse habitat 

objectives.

Composition, function, and 

structure of native 

vegetation communities 

would be consistent with 

the reference state of the 

appropriate ESD and 

would provide for healthy, 

resilient, and recovering 

sage-grouse habitat 

components.

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

The BLM/Forest Service

would continue to prioritize 

oversight and 

effectiveness monitoring 

of grazing activities to 

ensure compliance with 

permit conditions and that 

progress is being made on 

achieving Wyoming land 

health standards on BLMadministered lands.

Same as Alternative A
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-37

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

permittees. Monitoring 

studies would be 

conducted using the 

current BLM-approved 

methodology.

Pinedale RMP:

Monitoring of the range 

and the vegetation 

resource would be 

conducted at a level 

sufficient to detect changes 

in grazing use, trend, and 

range conditions. 

Monitoring would be tied to 

land health standards and 

indicators that help 

determine change in status 

and progress toward 

meeting objectives. Data 

would be used to direct 

and support grazing 

management decisions 

consistent with national 

policy. 

Rawlins RMP:

Livestock grazing would be 

managed to meet the 

Wyoming Standards for 

Healthy Rangelands.

Green River RMP/JMH 

CAP:

The kinds and seasons of 

livestock grazing use would 

continue to be licensed 

until monitoring, 

negotiation, consultation, 

or a change in resources 

conditions indicate that a 

modification is needed. 

Monitoring would be 

would focus on allotments 

that have the best 

opportunities for 

conserving, enhancing, or 

restoring habitat for sagegrouse. BLM/Forest 

Service Ecological Site 

Descriptions (ESDs) 

(Forest Service may use 

other methods) would be 

utilized to conduct land 

health assessments to 

determine if standards of 

rangeland health are 

being met.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-38 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

continued or initiated 

following adjustments in 

grazing use to assure that 

grazing and other 

management objectives 

are being met. 

47 No similar action No similar action In sage-grouse habitat, 

the BLM/Forest Service

would ensure that soil 

cover and native 

herbaceous plants are at 

their ESD potential to help 

protect against invasive 

plants. In areas without 

ESDs, reference sites 

would be utilized to 

identify appropriate 

vegetation communities 

and soil cover.

No similar action No similar action

Permit Renewals

48 TBNG LRMP:

During the AMP process or 

as other opportunities 

arise, livestock grazing 

strategies would be 

designed and implemented 

to provide quality nesting 

cover in all sagebrush 

stands (>15% canopy 

cover of big sagebrush, 

silver sagebrush, and 

greasewood) within at least 

3.0 miles of active display 

grounds (consistent with 

GA vegetation objectives) 

where sagebrush is 

irregularly distributed 

around the display ground.

This minimum distance 

could be reduced to 2.0 

If the LUP identifies 

specific allotment and/or 

permits where retirement 

is potentially beneficial, 

but the plan directs further 

site-specific analysis, a 

land use plan amendment 

would not be required to 

retire the permit as long as 

the site-specific analysis is 

consistent with the ROD.

Same as Alternative B In addition to 

Alternative A: 

As the grazing permits are 

renewed incorporating 

sage-grouse habitat 

objectives and 

management 

considerations in core 

habitats would be 

considered.

In Addition to 

Alternative A: 

Within sage-grouse core 

habitat, as appropriate, 

site specific sage-grouse 

habitat objectives and 

management 

considerations would be 

incorporated into all BLM 

and Forest Service

grazing allotments through 

Allotment Management 

Plans (AMPs), permit 

renewals, Forest Service

Annual Operating 

Instructions, and/or 

equivalent planning 

processes.
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-39

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

miles where sagebrush is 

uniformly distributed 

around display grounds.

MBNF LRMP:

Livestock grazing on 

rangelands would be 

coordinated to provide 

adequate cover and forage 

for sage-grouse.

49 Casper RMP:

Conversions in kinds of 

livestock and changes in 

season of use would be 

considered on a case-bycase basis through an 

environmental analysis. 

Such changes will be 

consistent with rangeland 

health objectives. Grazing 

leases will be adjusted to 

accurately reflect the kind 

of livestock use on public 

land in all allotments.

Kemmerer RMP:

Current amounts, kinds, 

and seasons of livestock 

grazing uses would be 

authorized until rangeland 

health standards 

assessment results and 

(or) monitoring indicates a 

grazing use adjustment is 

necessary, or that a kind 

and (or) class of livestock 

or season of use 

modification can be 

accommodated. 

Newcastle RMP:

Any adjustments in

The BLM/Forest Service

would implement 

management actions 

(grazing decisions, 

conservation plan 

development, or other 

agreements) to modify 

grazing management to 

meet seasonal sagegrouse habitat 

requirements. The 

BLM/Forest Service would 

consider singly, or in 

combination, changes in: 

1. Season or timing of use

2. Numbers of livestock 

(includes temporary 

non-use or livestock 

removal)

3. Distribution of livestock 

use

4. Intensity of use 

(utilization or stubble 

height objectives)

5. Kind of livestock (e.g., 

cattle, sheep, horses, 

llamas, alpacas and 

goats)

6. Class of livestock (e.g., 

yearlings versus cow 

No similar action Same as Alternative B The BLM and Forest 

Service policies and the 

equivalent Annual 

Operating Instructions 

would be used to evaluate 

progress toward achieving 

land health standards in 

sage-grouse core habitat 

areas and, where not 

achieved, to determine if 

existing grazing 

management practices or 

levels of grazing use on 

public lands are significant 

factors in failing to meet, 

maintain or make progress 

towards achieving the 

standards and conform 

with the guidelines, which 

through this process will 

identify appropriate 

actions to address nonachievement and nonconformance.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-40 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

livestock grazing use would 

be made as a result of 

monitoring and 

consultation with grazing 

permittees. Monitoring 

studies would be 

conducted using the 

current BLM-approved 

methodology.

Pinedale RMP:

Conversions from one type 

of livestock to another 

would be evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis, 

including an environmental 

analysis, and would be 

authorized in conformance 

with the goals and 

objectives of the RMP. 

Rawlins RMP:

The current amounts, 

kinds, and seasons of 

livestock grazing use would 

be authorized until 

monitoring, field 

observations, ecological 

site inventory, or other data 

acceptable to BLM 

indicates a grazing use 

adjustment is needed, as 

appropriate. Requests for

changes in season-of use 

or kind-of-livestock would 

be considered on a caseby-case basis. Any 

decision regarding 

changes in grazing use 

would include cooperation, 

consultation, and 

coordination with the 

grazing permittees and the 

calf pairs)

7. When processing 

NEPA for grazing 

permit renewals, 

include at least one 

alternative that would 

implement a deferred or 

rest-rotation grazing 

system, if one is not 

already in place and the 

size of the allotment 

warrants it.

The BLM/Forest Service

would consider terms and 

conditions on grazing 

permits and leases that 

assure plant growth 

requirement are met and 

residual forage remains 

available for sage-grouse 

hiding cover. 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-41

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

interested public. 

Green River RMP:

The Wyoming Standards 

for Healthy Rangelands 

(BLM 1997a) would apply 

to all resource uses on 

BLM-administered lands. 

These standards are the 

minimal acceptable 

conditions that address the 

health, productivity, and 

sustainability of the 

rangeland. The standards 

describe healthy 

rangelands rather than 

rangeland by-products. 

Achievement of a standard 

is determined through 

observing, measuring, and 

monitoring appropriate 

indicators. An indicator is a 

component of a system 

whose characteristics (e.g., 

presence, absence, 

quantity, and distribution) 

can be observed, 

measured, or monitored 

based on sound scientific 

principles. The standards 

will direct the management 

of public lands and focus 

the implementation of this 

activity plan toward the 

maintenance or attainment 

of healthy rangelands.

TBNG LRMP:

During the AMP process or 

as other opportunities 

arise, livestock grazing 

strategies would be 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-42 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

designed and implemented 

to provide quality nesting 

cover in all sagebrush 

stands (>15% canopy 

cover of big sagebrush, 

silver sagebrush, and 

greasewood) within at least 

3.0 miles of active display 

grounds (consistent with 

GA vegetation objectives) 

where sagebrush is 

irregularly distributed 

around the display ground.

This minimum distance 

could be reduced to 2.0 

miles where sagebrush is 

uniformly distributed 

around display grounds.

BTNF LRMP:

Fisheries, riparian habitats, 

and TES species' needs 

would be addressed in 

allotment management 

plans. 

Range improvements, 

management activities, and 

trailing would be 

coordinated with and 

designed to help meet fish 

and wildlife needs, 

especially on key habitat 

such as crucial winter 

range, seasonal calving 

areas, riparian areas, 

sage-grouse leks, and 

nesting sites. Special 

emphasis would be placed 

on helping to meet the 

needs of TES species.

50 When livestock grazing Retirement of grazing Same as Alternative B In addition to Same as Alternative A
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-43

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

permits and/or grazing 

preference are voluntarily 

relinquished, the 

relinquishment of grazing 

preference would be 

managed according to 

appropriate BLM and 

Forest Service regulations.

privileges would be 

maintained as an option in 

sage-grouse priority 

habitat areas when the 

current permittee is willing 

to retire grazing on all or 

part of an allotment.

The adverse impacts of no 

livestock use on wildfire 

and invasive species 

threats would be analyzed 

in evaluating retirement 

proposals.

Retirement of grazing 

preference would be 

provided on a case by 

case basis when the 

advantage to sage-grouse

habitat warrants, and a 

permittee or lessee 

voluntarily relinquishes 

their grazing preference in 

a specific grazing 

allotment or when a 

property is transferred.

No temporary use would 

be allowed in allotments 

where grazing preference 

has been relinquished. 

If the LUP identifies 

specific allotment and/or 

permits where retirement 

is potentially beneficial, 

but the plan directs further 

site-specific analysis, a 

land use plan amendment 

would not be required to 

retire the permit as long as 

the site-specific analysis is 

consistent with the ROD.

Alternative A: 

Retirement of up to 15%

within the individual 

planning unit would be 

authorized for grazing 

allotments in sage-grouse 

core habitat areas, where 

the permittee or lessee 

voluntarily relinquishes 

their grazing preference in 

their grazing allotment.

Temporary use may be 

allowed in allotments 

where grazing preference 

has been relinquished or 

non-use warrants, to rest 

other allotments that 

include important sagegrouse habitat.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-44 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

51 No similar action Each planning effort would

identify the specific 

allotment(s) where 

permanent retirement of 

grazing privileges is 

potentially beneficial to 

sage-grouse.

In each planning process, 

grazing allotments where 

permanent retirement of 

grazing privileges would 

be potentially beneficial to 

sage-grouse would be 

identified.

No similar action No similar action

52 Casper RMP:

Other management 

considerations for use of 

stock driveway withdrawals 

(SDW) would include 

providing emergency use 

for relief from fire, drought,

or other natural causes or 

to meet management 

objectives in adjoining 

allotments that require rest. 

These other uses would be 

addressed on a case-bycase basis and may occur 

any time during the year 

provided the AO has 

determined adequate 

forage is available and it 

does not interfere with 

regular trail use. The 

decision determining there 

is adequate forage would 

be documented and filed in 

the appropriate SDW file. 

Consultation and 

coordination with livestock 

owners who regularly use 

the respective SDW would 

be made prior to 

authorizing this type of use. 

This use would be 

authorized in accordance 

with Federal grazing 

regulations.

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

During drought periods, 

evaluating effects of 

drought in sage-grouse 

priority habitat areas 

relative to their needs for 

food and cover would be 

prioritized. Since there is a 

lag in vegetation recovery 

following drought, the 

BLM/Forest Service would 

ensure that post-drought 

management allows for 

vegetation recovery that 

meets sage-grouse needs 

in priority habitat areas.

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

During drought periods, 

evaluating effects of 

drought in sage-grouse 

priority and general habitat 

areas relative to their 

biological needs would be 

prioritized, as well as 

drought effects on

ungrazed reference areas. 

Since there is a lag in 

vegetation recovery 

following drought, the 

BLM/Forest Service would 

ensure that post-drought 

management allows for 

vegetation recovery that 

meets sage-grouse needs 

in sage-grouse habitat 

areas based on sagegrouse habitat objectives.

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

If periods of drought occur 

within sage-grouse core 

habitat, where 

appropriate, the season of 

use and stocking rate 

would be evaluated and 

adjusted through 

coordination with grazing 

permittee/lessee and 

annual billings processes.

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

If periods of drought 

occur, where appropriate, 

the AO would evaluate 

strategies to address 

drought through 

coordination with grazing 

permittee/lessee and 

annual billings processes.

In cooperation with 

livestock grazing 

permittees/lessees, 

drought contingency plans 

would be developed at the 

appropriate landscape unit 

that provide for a 

consistent/appropriate 

BLM/Forest Service

response. Plans should 

establish policy for 

addressing ongoing 

drought and post-drought 

recovery.
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-45

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

A drought contingency plan 

would be developed to 

maintain adequate habitat 

components for viable fish, 

wildlife, and special status 

species populations. 

BTNF LRMP:

Non-use for resource 

protection can be approved 

as a result of ongoing 

drought conditions.

Requests by permittees to 

downsize or de-stock 

because of extreme or 

prolonged drought are in 

the interest of sound 

rangeland management, 

should be approved on a 

case-by-case allotment 

basis, and should not count 

against the permittee’ s

period of nonuse for 

personal convenience. 

TBNG LRMP:

At the onset of drought, the 

need to adjust land uses to 

reduce impacts on sagegrouse nesting and 

brooding habitat would be 

evaluated.

Range Development Projects

53 Casper RMP:

Identified hazard fences 

would be modified and new 

fences would be 

constructed in accordance 

with the BLM Fencing 

Handbook 1741-1. 

Decision 4010.

In addition to 

Alternative A:

In priority habitat, any new 

structural range 

improvements and 

location of supplements 

(salt or protein blocks) 

would be designed to 

In addition to 

Alternative A:

All new structural range 

developments and 

location of supplements 

(salt or protein blocks) 

would be avoided in sagegrouse priority and 

In addition to 

Alternative A:

In sage-grouse general 

and core habitat, existing 

range improvements (e.g., 

fences, livestock/wildlife 

watering facilities) 

associated with grazing

In addition to 

Alternative A:

In sage-grouse general 

and core habitat, existing 

range improvements (e.g., 

fences, livestock/wildlife 

watering facilities) would 

continue to be evaluated 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-46 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Placement of salt, mineral, 

or forage supplements for 

livestock would not be 

allowed within 0.25 mile of 

water, wetlands, and 

riparian areas, unless 

written analysis shows that 

watershed, riparian, 

wetland, wildlife, and 

vegetative values would 

not be adversely impacted. 

Forage supplements would 

be required to be “certified 

weed-free.”

Kemmerer RMP:

BLM fencing standards 

would be applied to newly 

constructed fences on 

BLM-administered lands 

within the planning area. 

Existing fences would be 

eliminated or modified to 

reduce conflicts on a caseby-case basis. 

Livestock salt or mineral 

supplements would be 

located a minimum of 0.25

mile away from water 

sources, riparian areas, 

and aspen stands. Buffers 

would be based on 

resource concerns on a 

case-by-case basis. 

Newcastle RMP:

Fence construction would 

be required to meet current 

BLM fence standards. 

Fences on BLMadministered public land 

surface that cause 

conserve, enhance, or 

restore sage-grouse 

habitat through an 

improved grazing 

management system 

relative to sage-grouse 

objectives.

Structural range 

improvements, in this 

context, would include but 

would not be limited to: 

cattle guards, fences, 

exclosures, corrals or 

other livestock handling 

structures; pipelines, 

troughs, storage tanks 

(including moveable tanks 

used in livestock water 

hauling), windmills, 

ponds/reservoirs, solar 

panels and spring 

developments. Potential 

for invasive species 

establishment or increase 

following construction 

must be considered in the 

project planning process 

and monitored and treated 

post-construction.

When fences are 

necessary, in sage-grouse

habitat a sage-grousesafe design would be 

required.

To reduce sage-grouse 

strikes and mortality 

fences in high risk areas 

would be removed, 

modified, or marked within 

sage-grouse habitat based 

on proximity to lek, lek 

general habitat unless 

independent peerreviewed studies show 

that the range 

improvement structure or 

nutrient supplement 

placement benefits sagegrouse. 

Structural range 

developments, in this 

context, would include but 

would not be limited to 

cattle guards, fences, 

exclosures, corrals or 

other livestock handling 

structures; pipelines, 

troughs, storage tanks 

(including moveable tanks 

used in livestock water 

hauling), windmills, 

ponds/reservoirs, solar 

panels and spring 

developments. Potential 

for invasive species 

establishment or increase 

following construction 

must be considered in the 

project planning process 

and monitored and treated 

post-construction. The 

comparative cost of 

changing grazing 

management instead of 

constructing additional 

range developments 

would be considered.

Fences in areas of 

moderate or high risk of 

sage-grouse strikes would 

be removed, modified, or 

marked within sagemanagement operations 

would continue to be 

evaluated and modified 

when necessary for 

reducing impacts on 

Greater Sage-Grouse and 

its habitat.

and modified when 

necessary.

The potential risk to 

Greater Sage-Grouse and 

its habitats from existing

structural range 

improvements would be 

evaluated. The potential 

for modification of those 

structural range 

improvements identified 

as posing a risk would be 

addressed.

Supplements and 

supplemental feeding 

would continue to be 

authorized where 

appropriate.
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-47

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

documented wildlife 

conflicts would be 

removed, reconstructed, or 

modified, as appropriate or 

necessary, to eliminate or 

reduce the conflict. 

Construction of fences that 

interfere with movements 

of big game species in 

crucial big game winter 

range would not be allowed 

on BLM-administered 

public land surface.

Pinedale RMP:

Mineral supplement blocks 

would be placed in 

locations that promote 

proper grazing distribution 

and prevent inappropriate 

livestock use on riparian 

habitat; for example, by 

locating supplements on 

ridgetops and/or 

approximately 0.25 mile 

from riparian habitat. 

Placement of supplements 

near water sources, such

as wells and reservoirs, 

would consider rangeland 

objectives, such as grazing 

distribution, wildlife habitat 

requirements, and 

reclamation success. 

Mineral supplement blocks 

would not be placed within 

0.25 mile of an occupied 

sage-grouse lek. Mineral 

supplement blocks would 

not be placed within 0.25

mile of known Special 

Status Plant Species 

size, and topography.

In sage-grouse priority 

habitat, existing structural 

range improvements and 

location of supplements 

(salt or protein blocks) 

would be evaluated to 

make sure they conserve, 

enhance, or restore sagegrouse habitat.

grouse habitat based on 

proximity to lek, lek size, 

and topography.

In sage-grouse priority 

and general habitat, 

existing structural range 

improvements and 

location of supplements 

(salt or protein blocks) 

would be evaluated to 

make sure they conserve, 

enhance, or restore sagegrouse habitat.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-48 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

locations. 

Rawlins RMP:

New fence construction 

would be authorized 

according to BLM 

standards unless modified 

following consultation with 

affected parties. Existing 

fences would be modified 

according to current BLM 

standards and according to 

wildlife and livestock 

management needs.

Green River RMP/JMH 

CAP:

Where documented wildlife 

conflicts with fencing on 

public lands occur, fences 

would be modified, 

reconstructed, or, if 

necessary, removed. 

Herding control of livestock 

would be encouraged as 

an alternative to fencing. 

Fence construction would 

be in accordance with BLM 

design standards and 

located so as not to overly 

impede wildlife movement. 

Consideration would also 

be given to special status 

species and wild horse 

movement.

Green River RMP:

Livestock water 

developments and range 

improvements would be 

considered to maintain or 

improve resource 

conditions, enhance 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-49

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

livestock distribution, or 

both. Compatibility with 

special status plant species 

would be required. Water 

developments and/or range 

improvements proposed in 

sensitive areas would be 

considered only if wildlife 

habitat and resource 

conditions are maintained 

or improved and no 

significant or irreversible 

adverse effects would 

occur.

Salt or nutritional 

supplements would be 

prohibited within 500 feet 

of riparian habitat and 

National Historic and 

Scenic Trails unless 

analysis shows that these 

resources would not be

adversely affected. These 

supplements also would be 

prohibited on areas 

inhabited by special status 

plant species. Placement 

of supplements at least 

500 feet away from wells, 

troughs, and other humanmade water sources would 

be encouraged to better 

distribute livestock.

JMH CAP:

Livestock water 

developments and range 

improvements would be 

considered to maintain or 

improve resource 

conditions, enhance 

livestock distribution, or 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-50 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

both. Compatibility with 

special status plant species 

would be required. Water 

developments and/or range 

improvements proposed in 

sensitive areas would be 

considered only if wildlife 

habitat and resource 

conditions were maintained 

or improved and no 

significant or irreversible 

adverse effects would 

occur.

Salt or nutritional 

supplements would be 

prohibited within 500 feet 

of riparian habitat and 

National Historic and 

Scenic Trails unless 

analysis shows that these 

resources would not be 

adversely affected. These 

supplements also would be 

prohibited on areas 

inhabited by special status 

plant species. Placement 

of supplements at least 

500 feet away from wells, 

troughs, and other humanmade water sources would 

be encouraged to better 

distribute livestock. 

TBNG LRMP:

Any fences or water 

developments that are not 

contributing in achieving 

desired conditions would 

be prioritized for removal.

When installing new 

livestock water tanks, 

durable and effective 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-51

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

escape ramps for birds and 

small mammals would be 

installed. During 

maintenance of existing 

tanks, ramps that are 

ineffective or missing 

would be replaced. 

To help reduce 

disturbances to nesting 

sage-grouse, the following 

activities would be 

prohibited within 2.0 miles 

of active display grounds 

from March 1 to June 15:

1. Construction (e.g., 

roads, water 

impoundments, oil and 

gas facilities),

2. Reclamation,

3. Gravel mining 

operations,

4. Drilling of water wells, 

Standard (Grassland 

Wide Direction)

To reduce disturbances to 

nesting sage-grouse, the 

following activities would 

not be authorized within 

2.0 miles of active display 

grounds from March 1 to 

June 15:

1. Construction (e.g., 

pipelines, utilities, 

fencing), Guideline 

(Grassland Wide 

Direction)

When constructing facilities 

or structures within 2 miles 

of a sage-grouse active 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-52 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

display ground, they would 

be designed to discourage 

raptor perching by 

maintaining a low profile or 

using perch inhibitors.

BTNF LRMP:

Fish; Wildlife; and 

Sensitive Species 

Standard - Range 

improvements, 

management activities, and 

trailing would be 

coordinated with and 

designed to help meet fish 

and wildlife needs, 

especially on key habitat 

such as crucial winter 

range, seasonal calving 

areas, riparian areas, 

sage-grouse leks, and 

nesting sites. Special 

emphasis would be placed 

on helping to meet the 

needs of TES species.

Allotment Management 

Plan Standard - Fisheries; 

riparian habitats; and TES 

species' needs would be 

addressed in allotment 

management plans. 

Fish; Wildlife; and 

Sensitive Species 

Standard - Range 

improvements, 

management activities, and 

trailing would be 

coordinated with and 

designed to help meet fish 

and wildlife needs, 

especially on key habitat 

such as crucial winter 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-53

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

range, seasonal calving 

areas, riparian areas, 

sage-grouse leks, and 

nesting sites. Special 

emphasis will be placed on 

helping to meet the needs 

of TES species.

Form FS-2200-10b 

(Grazing Permit - Part 3) 

contains management 

practice requirements 

pertaining to livestock 

salting. Though none of the 

provisions found in recent 

permits directly address 

sage-grouse conservation 

measures, this section may 

be modified to stipulate 

such measures.

MBNF LRMP:

New disturbances such as 

construction, drilling, new 

recreation facilities, 

logging, or other 

concentrated intense 

activities would be 

prohibited. Short-term 

projects designed to 

improve habitat such as 

prescribed burning are 

permitted.

Sage-grouse breeding 

complexes: March 1 - June 

30; 2 miles: Fence density 

would be limited by 

allowing new fences only to 

facilitate protection, public 

safety, or habitat protection 

or enhancement. Stock 

tanks and similar features 

would, in all cases, be kept 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-54 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

out of the water influence 

zone if feasible and out of 

riparian areas and 

wetlands. Stock driveways 

would be kept out of the 

water influence zone 

except to cross at 

designated points. Water 

gaps would be hardened 

and stock crossing would 

be designated where 

needed and feasible. Salt 

and other supplements 

would be placed at least 

0.25 mile from riparian 

areas and water 

developments unless 

specified otherwise in the 

allotment management 

plan or annual operating 

instructions.

Livestock Trailing

54 Casper RMP:

The revocation of 

withdrawals for those trails 

that are no longer active 

would be reviewed and 

recommended and these 

lands would be 

incorporated into adjacent 

allotments (46,050 acres). 

Grazing leases would be 

offered to the respective 

grazing lessees. All 

remaining SDW lands for 

trail use (55,680 acres) 

would be retained.

Kemmerer RMP:

Current livestock trails 

would be retained. 

No similar action In addition to 

Alternative A: 

Grazing and trailing would 

be avoided within lekking, 

nesting, brood-rearing, 

and winter habitats during 

periods of the year when 

these habitats are utilized 

by sage-grouse.

Same as Alternative A In addition to 

Alternative A: 

Livestock trailing that is 

authorized would include a 

trailing plan to utilize nonhabitat to the extent 

possible, include specific 

routes and timeframes for 

trailing, utilize existing 

trails, and avoid stopovers 

on occupied leks, as 

appropriate. 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-55

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Livestock trailing use would 

occur within 0.5 mile of the 

mapped centerline. 

Pinedale RMP:

Adequate stock trails would 

be maintained to support 

livestock trailing needs.

Riparian Area Management

55 Casper RMP:

Lotic and lentic 

wetland/riparian areas 

would be managed toward 

PFC.

The BLM would manage 

toward PFC and identified 

DPC on 350 miles of lotic 

and adjacent riparian 

habitat and 10,000 acres of 

lentic habitat to meet fish, 

wildlife, and special status 

species habitat 

requirements.

Kemmerer RMP:

Livestock conversions 

would be allowed in 

allotments with riparian 

concerns only when a plan 

is approved to address 

riparian issues. 

Management actions and 

range improvements 

proposed to address 

riparian issues would have 

to be implemented prior to 

authorizing the conversion. 

Livestock conversions may 

be approved only after 

completion of a suitability 

study for the conversion. 

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

Within sage-grouse 

priority habitat, where 

riparian areas and wet 

meadows meet proper 

functioning condition or 

meet standards using 

other similar methodology 

(Forest Service only), the 

BLM/Forest Service would 

strive to attain reference 

state vegetation relative to 

the ESD.

Riparian areas and wet 

meadows would be 

managed for proper 

functioning condition or 

other similar methodology 

(Forest Service only) 

within sage-grouse priority 

habitats.

Within priority and general 

sage-grouse habitats, wet 

meadows would be 

managed to maintain a 

component of perennial 

forbs with diverse species 

richness relative to site 

potential (e.g., reference 

state) to facilitate brood 

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

Within sage-grouse 

priority habitat, where 

riparian areas and wet 

meadows meet proper 

functioning condition or 

meet standards using 

other similar methodology 

(Forest Service only), the 

BLM/Forest Service would 

strive to attain reference 

state vegetation relative to 

the ESD.

Riparian areas and wet 

meadows would be 

managed for proper 

functioning condition or 

other similar methodology 

(Forest Service only) 

within sage-grouse priority 

habitats.

Within sage-grouse 

priority and general 

habitats, wet meadows 

would be managed to 

maintain a component of 

perennial forbs with 

diverse species richness 

and productivity relative to 

site potential (e.g., 

In sage-grouse core 

habitats, to address a 

proven threat to sagegrouse conservation,

balancing grazing 

between riparian habitats 

and upland habitats would 

be considered to promote 

the production and 

availability of beneficial 

forbs to Greater SageGrouse in meadows, 

mesic habitats, and 

riparian pastures for 

Greater Sage-Grouse use 

during nesting and broodrearing while maintaining 

upland conditions and 

functions. Through a full 

range of grazing

management strategies 

for livestock, wildlife, and 

wild horses, changes to 

season-of-use in 

riparian/wetland areas 

before or after the hot 

growing season would be 

considered. 

In Addition to 

Alternative A: 

Grazing between riparian 

habitats and upland 

habitats would be 

balanced to promote the 

production and availability 

of beneficial forbs to 

Greater Sage-Grouse for 

use during nesting and 

brood-rearing. Grazing in 

meadows, mesic habitats, 

and riparian pastures also 

would be balanced to 

promote the production 

and availability of 

beneficial grasses and 

forbs for use during late 

brood-rearing within core 

habitat areas, while 

maintaining upland 

conditions and functions.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-56 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

The conversion may be 

authorized if it is 

determined that riparian 

habitats will be maintained 

or improved by the 

conversion. 

Pinedale RMP:

Meet the Wyoming 

Standards for Rangeland 

Health and maintain or 

enhance wetland and 

riparian vegetation to 

achieve Proper Functioning 

Condition.

Grazing systems will be 

designed to maintain or 

improve watershed and 

range condition; for 

example, through changing 

seasons of use, 

implementing rotational or 

other grazing management 

systems, or developing 

infrastructure for livestock 

management. 

In allotments with riparian 

habitat, grazing 

management actions will 

be designed to maintain or 

achieve proper functioning 

condition. 

Green River RMP:

Range improvements will 

be directed at resolving or 

reducing resource 

concerns, improvement of 

wetland/riparian areas, and 

overall improvement of 

vegetation/ground cover. 

New range improvements 

rearing. Also these wet 

meadow complexes would 

be conserved or enhanced 

to maintain or increase the 

amount of edge and cover 

within that edge to 

minimize elevated 

mortality during the late 

brood rearing period.

Within sage-grouse 

priority habitat, hot season 

grazing on riparian and 

meadow complexes would 

be reduced to promote 

recovery or maintenance 

of appropriate vegetation 

and water quality.

Fencing/herding 

techniques, seasonal use, 

or livestock distribution 

changes would be utilized 

to reduce pressure on 

riparian or wet meadow 

vegetation used by sagegrouse in the hot season 

(summer).

reference state) to 

facilitate brood rearing. At 

least 6 inches of stubble 

height must remain on all 

riparian/meadow area 

herbaceous species at all 

times. Also these wet 

meadow complexes would 

be conserved or enhanced 

to maintain or increase the 

amount of edge and cover 

within that edge to 

minimize elevated 

mortality during the late 

brood-rearing period.
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-57

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

may be implemented in “I” 

and “M” category 

allotments. Maintenance of 

range improvements will be 

required in accordance 

with the BLM Rangeland 

Improvement Policy. 

JMH CAP:

Implementation of grazing 

management systems will 

assist in improving or 

maintaining the desired 

range condition. Approved 

AMPs, or other activity 

plans intended to serve as 

the functional equivalent to 

an AMP, for each of the 

designated grazing 

allotments will provide the 

necessary guidance for 

achieving grazing 

management objectives. 

Appropriate actions for 

improving degraded 

rangeland and riparian 

habitat (i.e., meeting 

Wyoming Standards for 

Healthy Rangelands (BLM

1997a)) could include, but 

will not be limited to, 

reduction of permitted 

animal unit months (AUM), 

modified turnout dates, 

livestock water

developments, range 

improvements, modified 

grazing periods, growing 

season rest, riparian 

pastures, exclosures, 

implementation of forage 

utilization levels, and 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-58 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

livestock conversions. 

These improvements will 

be considered individually 

using the method outlined 

in Appendix 2 of the JMH 

CAP ROD to ensure 

conformance with 

management objectives for 

the planning area and 

other resource values.

TBNG LRMP:

During vegetation 

management practices, 

maintain or enhance wet 

and sub-irrigated 

meadows, seeps, riparian 

habitats, and other wetland 

areas that occur in or 

adjacent to sage-grouse

habitat as quality sagegrouse foraging areas 

during the spring, summer, 

and fall.

BTNF LRMP:

Objective 4.3 - Protect and 

rehabilitate riparian areas 

to retain and improve their 

value for fisheries, aquatic 

habitat, wildlife, and water 

quality. 

MBNF LRMP:

Manage livestock grazing 

in riparian areas and 

wetlands using “best 

management practices.” 

The following Watershed 

Conservation Practices are 

interrelated and should be 

considered and 

implemented as a 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-59

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

complete package where 

feasible:

1. Apply short duration 

grazing, as feasible 

(generally 20-30 days), 

to provide greater 

opportunity for regrowth 

and to avoid utilization of 

woody species.

2. Design grazing systems 

to limit utilization of 

woody species. Move 

livestock from riparian 

areas and wetlands 

when they begin to have 

a preference for woody 

species, especially 

plants in the young 

maturity classes.

3. Keep stock tanks and 

similar features out of 

the water influence zone 

if feasible and out of 

riparian areas and 

wetlands always.

4. Keep stock driveways 

out of the water 

influence zone except to 

cross at designated 

points. Harden water 

gaps and designated 

stock crossing where 

needed and feasible.

56 Green River RMP:

Water sources may be 

developed in crucial wildlife 

winter ranges only when 

consistent with wildlife 

habitat needs. Such 

sources will be designed to 

In addition to 

Alternative A:

Within sage-grouse 

priority habitats, new 

water developments for 

diversion from spring or 

seep source would be 

In addition to 

Alternative A:

No new water 

developments for 

diversion from spring or 

seep sources would be 

authorized within sageIn addition to 

Alternative A: 

Within sage-grouse core 

habitats, water 

developments would be 

authorized as needed to 

support grazing 

Range improvement 

projects would be planned 

and authorized on BLM 

and National Forest 

System Lands in a way 

that contributes to 

rangeland health and 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-60 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

benefit livestock, wild 

horses, and wildlife. 

Alternative water supplies 

or facilities for livestock 

may be provided to relieve 

livestock grazing pressure 

along stream bottoms and

improve livestock 

distribution.

JMH CAP:

Livestock water 

developments and range 

improvements will be 

considered to maintain or 

improve resource 

conditions, enhance 

livestock distribution, or 

both. Compatibility with 

special status plant species 

will be required. Water 

developments and/or range 

improvements proposed in 

sensitive areas (Map 4) will 

be considered only if 

wildlife habitat and 

resource conditions are 

maintained or improved 

and no significant or 

irreversible adverse effects 

will occur.

BTNF LRMP:

Allotment Management 

Plan Standard - Fisheries; 

riparian habitats; and TES 

species' needs will be 

addressed in allotment 

management plans.

MBNF LRMP:

Keep stock tanks and 

similar features out of the 

authorized only when 

priority sage-grouse 

habitat would benefit on 

both upland and riparian 

habitat from the 

development or when 

there are no negative 

impacts to sage-grouse. 

This would include 

developing new water 

sources for livestock as 

part of an 

AMP/conservation plan to 

improve sage-grouse 

habitat. 

grouse priority and 

general habitats.

objectives. maintains and/or improves 

Greater Sage-Grouse and 

its habitat. 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-61

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

water influence zone if 

feasible and out of riparian 

areas and wetlands 

always.

57 BTNF LRMP:

Allotment Management 

Plan Standard - Fisheries; 

riparian habitats; and TES 

species' needs will be 

addressed in allotment 

management plans. Priority 

1 validation monitoring of 

riparian areas: Conduct a 

level III riparian 

evaluation...and level II 

riparian evaluation on 

stocked allotments...with 

key riparian values to solve 

site specific problems 

and/or to assess impacts of 

management activities on 

riparian resources. Further 

evaluation or change in 

management required

when riparian area 

management objectives 

are not met.

TBNG LRMP:

Manage livestock grazing 

to maintain or improve 

riparian/woody draw areas.

Implement the following 

practices:

Avoid season-long grazing 

and activities, such as 

feeding, salting, herding, or

water developments, which 

concentrate livestock in 

riparian/woody draw areas.

Control the timing, 

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

Springs, seeps and 

associated pipelines 

would be analyzed to 

determine if modifications 

are necessary to maintain 

the continuity of the 

predevelopment riparian 

area within sage-grouse 

priority habitats.

Modifications would be 

made where necessary, 

considering impacts to

other water uses when 

such considerations are 

neutral or beneficial to 

sage-grouse.

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

Springs, seeps and 

associated water 

developments would be 

analyzed to determine if 

modifications are 

necessary to maintain the 

continuity of the 

predevelopment riparian 

area within sage-grouse 

habitats. Modifications 

would be made where 

necessary, including 

dismantling water 

developments.

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

Existing water 

developments would be 

maintained or modified to 

support grazing 

objectives.

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

Existing water 

developments associated 

with springs and seeps 

would be evaluated and 

associated 

pipelines/structures to 

those developments 

having a negative effect 

on sage-grouse core 

habitats would be 

modified.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-62 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

duration, and intensity of 

grazing in riparian areas to 

promote establishment and 

development of woody 

species.

Minerals Management

Exceptions to lease stipulations, Conditions of Approval, and terms and conditions 

58 Exceptions, waivers, and 

modifications to lease 

stipulations, COAs, and 

terms and conditions 

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

will continue to be 

considered on a case-bycase basis consistent with 

approved LUPs.

TBNG LRMP:

Exceptions to lease 

stipulations, COAs, and 

T&Cs, etc. for sage-grouse 

will continue to be 

considered on a case-bycase basis consistent with 

approved stipulations in 

Appendix D of the TBNG 

LRMP.

MBNF LRMP:

Exceptions to lease 

stipulations, COAs, and 

T&Cs, etc. for sage-grouse 

will continue to be 

considered on a case-bycase basis consistent with 

approved stipulations in 

Appendix E of the MBNF 

LRMP.

Exceptions, waivers, and 

modifications to lease 

stipulations, COAs, and 

T&Cs for sage-grouse 

would not be considered 

within sage-grouse priority 

habitat.

Exceptions, waivers, and 

modifications to lease 

stipulations, COAs, and 

T&Cs for sage-grouse 

would not be considered 

within sage-grouse priority 

and general habitat.

Exceptions waivers, and 

modifications to lease 

stipulations, COAs, and 

T&Cs, etc., for sagegrouse would continue to 

be considered on a caseby-case basis consistent 

with approved LUPs and 

other BLM/Forest Service

policy and regulations as 

they relate to exceptions 

within sage-grouse core 

and general habitat.

Same as Alternative D

Fluid Minerals Unleased Estate

59 No similar action No similar action Any oil, gas, or No similar action No similar action
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-63

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

geothermal activity would

be conducted to maximize 

avoidance of impacts, 

based on evolving 

scientific knowledge of 

impacts.

60 Fluid mineral leasing would 

be allowed in sage-grouse 

core habitat areas, except 

in areas that are 

unavailable for leasing due 

to the need to protect other 

sensitive resources

(Map 2-4).

Priority sage-grouse 

habitat areas would be 

closed to fluid mineral 

leasing (Map 2-5). 

An exception would be 

considered when there is 

an opportunity for the BLM 

and Forest Service to 

influence conservation 

measures where surface 

and/or mineral ownership 

is not entirely federally 

owned (i.e., checkerboard 

ownership). In this case, a 

plan amendment may be 

developed that opens the 

priority area for new 

leasing. The plan must 

demonstrate long-term 

population increases in 

the priority area through 

mitigation (prior to issuing 

the lease) including lease 

stipulations, offsite 

mitigation, etc., and avoid 

short-term losses that put 

the sage-grouse 

population at risk from 

stochastic events leading 

to extirpation.

Sage-grouse priority and 

general habitat areas 

would be closed to fluid 

mineral leasing (Map 2-6). 

An exception would be 

considered when there is 

an opportunity for the 

BLM/Forest Service to 

influence conservation 

measures where surface 

and/or mineral ownership 

is not entirely federally 

owned (i.e., checkerboard 

ownership). In this case, a 

plan amendment may be 

developed that opens 

sage-grouse habitat for 

new leasing. The plan 

must demonstrate longterm population increases 

in the priority area through 

mitigation (prior to issuing 

the lease) including lease 

stipulations, and off-site 

mitigation, and avoid 

short-term losses that put 

the sage-grouse 

population at risk from 

stochastic events leading 

to extirpation. 

Upon expiration or 

termination of existing 

leases, nominations/

expressions of interest for 

parcels within sageThe agencies would allow 

oil and gas leasing 

consistent and subject to 

the leasing stipulations 

analyzed in the timing, 

distance, disturbance, and 

density restrictions 

sections.

In addition to 

Alternative A: Fluid 

mineral leasing would be 

administratively 

unavailable in the 

following special 

management or higher 

sage-grouse core habitat 

areas (Map 2-7):

1. Newcastle RMP: Raven 

Creek (79,640 total 

acres)

2. Pinedale RMP: Beaver 

Ridge, Fontenelle 

Creek, and East 

Anticline (39,860 total 

acres).

As existing fluid mineral 

leases expire in the areas 

listed above, they would 

not be re-offered for lease.

In addition to 

Alternative A:

The agencies would allow 

oil and gas leasing 

consistent and subject to 

the leasing stipulations 

analyzed in the timing, 

distance, disturbance, and 

density restrictions 

sections (Map 2-8).
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-64 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

grouse priority and 

general habitat would not 

be accepted.

61 A minimum lease size will 

not be applied within sagegrouse core habitat areas.

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A A minimum lease size of 

640 contiguous acres of 

federal mineral estate 

would be applied within 

sage-grouse core habitat 

areas.

Smaller parcels may be 

leased only when 640 

contiguous acres of 

federal mineral estate is 

not available and leasing 

is necessary to remain in 

compliance with laws, 

regulations and policy; for 

example, to protect the 

federal mineral estate 

from drainage or to 

commit the federal mineral 

estate to unit or 

communitization 

agreements.

62 Casper RMP:

The blocks of public land 

identified as mapped in the 

Casper Field Office GIS 

database will be managed 

to retain intact blocks of 

native vegetation (192,550

acres, of which 131,880

acres are BLMadministered surface). In 

these areas, the following 

restrictions apply:

1. These blocks are (1) 

administratively 

unavailable for oil and 

gas leasing and (2) a 

In addition to 

Alternative A:

Geophysical exploration 

would be allowed within 

sage-grouse priority 

habitat areas to obtain 

exploratory information for 

areas outside of and 

adjacent to sage-grouse 

priority habitat areas.

Geophysical operations 

would be allowed using 

only helicopter-portable 

drilling, wheeled or 

tracked vehicles on 

existing roads, or other 

In addition to 

Alternative A:

No new geophysical 

exploration permits would 

be issued within priority 

and general sage-grouse 

habitat. 

An exception to this for the 

purposes of recognizing 

valid existing rights would 

be the following:

Geophysical exploration 

would be allowed within 

priority and general sagegrouse habitat areas to 

Same as Alternative A In addition to Alternative A 

(except for the actions 

pertaining to the BTNF):

Geophysical exploration 

projects that are designed 

to minimize habitat 

fragmentation within sagegrouse core habitat would 

be allowed, except were 

prohibited or restricted by 

existing LUP decisions.

BTNF LRMP:

Seismic Activity Standard 

- Helicopter-access 

seismic activity would be 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-65

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

geophysical operation 

on public surface for the 

life of the plan. Activities 

for existing oil and gas 

leases are managed 

intensively (see 

Appendix U of the 

Casper RMP). Existing 

leases will be allowed to 

expire and not be 

renewed.

2. Within these blocks, a 

withdrawal from the 

operation of the public 

land laws, including the 

mining laws will be 

pursued.

3. These blocks are closed 

to mineral material 

disposal. Existing 

permits will be allowed 

to expire without 

renewal or expansion.

4. These blocks are not 

open to wind/renewable 

energy development.

5. These blocks remain 

open to livestock 

grazing.

6. All allowed surfacedisturbing activities 

within the designated 

blocks are subject to a 

CSU restriction, 

minimizing surface 

disturbance to meet 

management objectives. 

Decision 4024 

The North Platte River 

SRMA will continue to be 

approved methods 

conducted in accordance 

with seasonal timing 

limitations and other 

restrictions that may 

apply.

obtain exploratory 

information for areas 

outside of and adjacent to 

priority and general sagegrouse habitat areas. 

Geophysical operations 

would be allowed by only 

using helicopter-portable 

drilling methods and in 

accordance with seasonal 

timing restrictions and/or 

other restrictions that may 

apply. 

Geophysical exploration 

shall be subject to 

seasonal restrictions that 

preclude activities in 

breeding, nesting, brood 

rearing, and winter 

habitats during their 

season of use by sagegrouse.

permitted. Seismic Activity 

Termination Guideline -

Seismic activity should be 

seasonally restricted.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-66 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

open to oil and gas leasing 

and geophysical 

operations. Decision 7039

The area is administratively 

unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing and geophysical 

exploration is not allowed. 

Decision 7047

The MA is administratively 

unavailable for new oil and 

gas leasing. No 

geophysical operations will 

be allowed on public 

surface.

Activities on existing leases 

will be managed intensively 

to meet the objectives of 

the MA (see Appendix U of 

the Casper RMP–

Intensive Management). To 

minimize surface-disturbing 

activities, oil and gas 

exploration and 

development will use 

directional drilling 

techniques and well 

twinning whenever 

practicable. Decision 7059

The Red Wall/Gray Wall 

complex is located entirely 

within the South 

Bighorns/Red Wall MA and 

is administratively 

unavailable for new oil and 

gas leasing. No 

geophysical operations will 

be allowed on public 

surface. Activities on 

existing leases will be 

intensively managed to 

meet the objectives of the 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-67

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

MA (see Appendix U of the 

Casper RMP– Intensive 

Management). To minimize 

surface-disturbing 

activities, oil and gas 

exploration and 

development will use 

directional drilling 

techniques and well 

twinning whenever 

practicable. Decision 7063

Those lands currently open 

to oil and gas leasing will 

continue to be open to 

geophysical operations. 

Those lands open to oil 

and gas leasing, but 

subject to an NSO 

restriction, may be open to 

geophysical operations 

should site specific NEPA 

analysis disclose a finding 

of no significant impact. No 

geophysical operations are 

allowed in areas 

administratively 

unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing. Decision 2019

Kemmerer RMP:

Allow for geophysical 

exploration on lands 

throughout the planning 

area subject to identified 

conditions of approval. 

Newcastle RMP:

Surface-disturbing and 

disruptive activities 

associated with all types of 

minerals exploration and 

development and with 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-68 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

geophysical exploration will 

be subject to appropriate 

mitigation measures 

determined through, but 

not limited to, use of the 

Wyoming BLM Mitigation 

Guidelines.

Pinedale RMP:

Vehicle-based geophysical 

activities will be assessed 

on a case-by-case basis. 

The use of surface and/or 

above-ground (Poulter 

shot) explosive charges for 

geophysical exploration will 

be assessed case by case. 

Geophysical projects, 

including projects proposed 

in areas with an NSO 

restriction, will be analyzed 

and mitigation developed 

on a case-by-case basis. 

Geophysical activities that 

are considered casual use 

actions are allowed within 

0.25 mile of active sagegrouse leks provided that:

Operations are conducted 

on designated roads and 

trails. 

Operations during the 

breeding season (March 1 

through May 15) are 

conducted between the 

hours of 8:00 a.m. and 

8:00 p.m. 

A 150-foot wide strip of 

undisturbed sagebrush is 

maintained around the 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-69

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

perimeter of the lek for 

hiding and escape cover. 

Rawlins RMP:

All lands open to oil and 

gas leasing consideration 

will also be open to 

geophysical exploration, 

subject to appropriate 

resource surveys, surface 

protection measures, 

adequate bonding, and 

adherence to State of 

Wyoming standards for 

geophysical operations. 

Vehicular use for 

“necessary tasks” (as 

defined in the glossary), 

such as geophysical 

exploration including 

project survey and layout, 

will be permitted except 

where specifically 

prohibited (e.g., some 

SD/MAs). 

Green River RMP:

Geophysical exploration 

(vehicles and detonation) 

activities will be prohibited 

within 0.5 mile of the 

Pinnacles Geologic 

Feature. Areas of sensitive 

heritage resources and 

geologic features, such as 

Boars Tusk, White 

Mountain Petroglyphs, 

special status plant 

species, WSAs, and 

historic trails, will remain 

closed. Receiver lines may 

be laid using foot traffic 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-70 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

within these areas. 

Exceptions to these 

restrictions may be granted 

on a case-by-case basis 

subject to appropriate sitespecific analysis and 

mitigation requirements. 

The remainder of the 

planning area will be open 

to geophysical exploration, 

with application of 

appropriate mitigation. 

Rights-of-way limitations in 

the planning area apply to 

on- and off-road vehicle 

traffic used for geophysical 

activities. Exploration 

activities will be allowed in 

sensitive resource areas 

only if they can be 

performed with acceptable 

mitigation of impacts.

JMH CAP:

Geophysical exploration 

(vehicles and detonation) 

activities will be prohibited 

within 0.5 mile of the 

Pinnacles Geologic 

Feature. Areas of sensitive 

heritage resources and 

geologic features, such as 

Boars Tusk, White 

Mountain Petroglyphs, 

special status plant 

species, WSAs, and 

historic trails, will remain 

closed. Receiver lines may 

be laid using foot traffic 

within these areas. 

Exceptions to these 

restrictions may be granted 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-71

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

on a case-by-case basis 

subject to appropriate sitespecific analysis and 

mitigation requirements. 

The remainder of the 

planning area will be open 

to geophysical exploration, 

with application of 

appropriate mitigation. 

Rights-of-way limitations in 

the planning area apply to 

on- and off-road vehicle 

traffic used for geophysical 

activities. Exploration 

activities will be allowed in 

sensitive resource areas 

only if they can be 

performed with acceptable 

mitigation of impacts.

BTNF LRMP:

Seismic Activity Standard -

Helicopter-access seismic 

activity will be permitted. 

Seismic Activity 

Termination Guideline -

Seismic activity may be 

seasonally restricted.

TBNG LRMP:

Where no suitable 

mitigation measures are 

possible, prohibit 

geophysical (seismic) 

operations that cause 

surface disturbance in 

Research Natural Areas, 

Special Interest Areas, 

American Indian traditional 

use area, and known 

National Register eligible 

sites.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-72 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Minimize surface and other 

resource disturbance from 

geophysical operations. 

Do not allow new road 

construction, unless 

alternatives have been 

assessed and determined 

to be more environmentally 

damaging. 

MBNF LRMP:

Where no effective 

mitigation measures are 

possible, prohibit 

geophysical (seismic) 

operations that cause 

surface disturbance in 

Research Natural Areas, 

Special Interest Areas, 

Recommended 

Wilderness, recommended 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, 

American Indian traditional 

use areas and known 

National Register sites.

Minimize surface and other 

resource disturbance from 

geophysical operations. 

63 Kemmerer RMP:

Choose and implement 

appropriate mitigation in a 

timely manner to minimize 

decreases in habitat 

function. 

Utilize appropriate 

voluntary offsite 

compensatory mitigation to 

reduce impacts. This would 

be necessary if (1) all 

onsite mitigation has been 

In addition to 

Alternative A:

In cases where federal oil 

and gas leases have been 

issued without adequate 

stipulations for the 

protection of sage-grouse 

or their habitats being 

provided in the applicable 

LUP decision, as revised 

or amended, their 

inclusion as permit COAs 

would be considered when 

In addition to 

Alternative A:

In cases where federal oil 

and gas leases have been 

issued without adequate 

stipulations for the 

protection of sage-grouse 

or their habitats being 

provided in the applicable 

LUP decision, as revised 

or amended, their 

inclusion as permit COAs 

would be considered when 

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

The BLM/Forest Service

would work with project 

proponents in these 

situations to promote 

measurable sage-grouse 

conservation objectives 

such as, but not limited to, 

consolidation of project 

related infrastructure to 

reduce habitat 

fragmentation and loss 

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

In cases where federal oil 

and gas leases have been 

issued with stipulations 

varying from those in 

Appendix E for the 

protection of sage-grouse 

or their habitats being 

provided in the applicable 

LUP decision, as revised 

or amended, their 

inclusion as permit COAs 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-73

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

accomplished and adverse 

effects have not been 

mitigated; or (2) if onsite 

mitigation is not feasible.

Pinedale RMP:

Offsite mitigation proposed 

by oil and gas or other 

operators could be 

considered and analyzed in 

future environmental 

documents as mitigation 

for proposed activities 

within the planning area. 

Proposed offsite mitigation 

will be described and 

analyzed for effectiveness 

in detail on a projectspecific basis. Offsite 

mitigation would conform to 

requirements in the 

Pinedale RMP regarding 

the order of use of 

mitigation methods, 

stipulations applied to 

offsite mitigation measures, 

and priority order for 

mitigating resource impacts 

onsite or offsite.

Green River RMP:

Development actions will 

be analyzed on a case-bycase basis to identify 

mitigation needs to meet 

RMP objectives, provide 

for resource protection, 

and provide for logical 

development. Limitations 

on the amount, sequence, 

timing, or level of 

development may occur. 

This may result in 

approving exploration and 

development activities 

through completion of the 

environmental record of 

review (43 CFR 3162.5

and 36 CFR 228.108), 

including appropriate 

documentation of 

compliance with NEPA. 

Overall consideration 

would be given to 

minimizing the impact to 

sage-grouse through a 

project design that avoids, 

minimizes, reduces, 

rectifies, and/or 

adequately compensates 

for direct and indirect 

impacts to sage-grouse 

habitat or use and 

includes applicable and 

technically COAs. 

Selection and application 

of these measures would 

be based on current 

science and research on 

the effects to important 

breeding, nesting, broodrearing, and wintering 

areas.

For proposed operations 

in priority habitat areas, 

the Surface Use Plan of 

Operations (see 43CFR 

3162.3-1(f)) would 

address, at a minimum, 

the anticipated noise, 

density and amount of 

disturbance, mechanical 

movement (e.g., pump 

jacks), permanent and 

approving exploration and 

development activities 

through completion of the 

environmental record of 

review (43 CFR 3162.5

and 36 CFR 228.108), 

including appropriate 

documentation of 

compliance with NEPA. 

In this process, the 

following, among other 

things, would be 

evaluated:

1. Whether the 

conservation measure 

is “reasonable” (43 CFR 

§ 3101.1-2) with the 

valid existing rights

2. Whether the action is in 

conformance with the 

approved RMP.

and to promote effective 

conservation of seasonal 

habitats and connectivity 

areas that support 

population management 

objectives set by the state. 

The BLM/Forest Service

would continue to work 

with project proponents 

(including those from 

within the BLM/Forest 

Service) and the WGFD to 

site their projects in 

locations that meet the 

purpose and need for their 

project, but have been 

determined to contain the 

least sensitive habitats 

and resources whether 

inside or outside of sagegrouse core habitat areas. 

Valid existing rights will be 

recognized and respected.

would be considered when 

approving exploration and 

development activities 

through completion of the 

environmental record of 

review (43 CFR 3162.5

and 36 CFR 228.108), 

including appropriate 

documentation of 

compliance with NEPA. 

Overall consideration shall 

be given to minimizing the 

impact to sage-grouse 

through a project design 

that avoids, minimizes, 

reduces, rectifies, and/or 

adequately compensates 

for direct and indirect 

impacts to sage-grouse 

core habitat or use and 

includes applicable and 

technical COAs. Selection 

and application of these 

measures shall be based 

on current science and 

research on the effects to 

important breeding, 

nesting, brood-rearing, 

and wintering areas. For 

proposed operations in 

core habitat areas, the 

Surface Use Plan of 

Operations (see 43CFR 

3162.3-1(f)) shall address, 

at a minimum, the 

anticipated noise, density 

and amount of 

disturbance, mechanical 

movement (e.g., pump 

jacks), permanent and 

temporary facilities, traffic, 

phases of development 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-74 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

transportation planning and 

in limitations in the number 

of roads and drill pads, or 

deferring development in 

some areas until other 

areas have been restored 

to previous uses. 

JMH CAP:

COAs attached to an 

Application for Permit to 

Drill (APD) will be based on 

site-specific NEPA or other 

analysis and will establish 

specific, necessary 

mitigation measures not 

covered by stipulations for 

resource and 

environmental protection. 

Some areas will need more 

intensive mitigation 

measures to protect 

sensitive resources and 

provide for public health 

and safety. These intensive 

mitigation measures or 

COAs will mostly apply to 

areas with overlapping 

sensitive resources (e.g., 

Areas 2 and 3). Examples 

of intensive mitigation that 

can apply to all activities 

based on site-specific 

analysis include offsite 

placement of facilities, 

remote control monitoring, 

restricted or prohibited 

surface use including road 

construction, multiple wells 

from a single pad, central 

tank batteries/facilities, and 

pipelines and power lines 

temporary facilities, traffic, 

phases of development 

over time, offsite 

mitigation, and expected 

periods of use associated 

with the proposed project. 

Seasonal habitats or 

project features related to 

potential sage-grouse 

impacts that are not 

addressed in the SUPO 

based on site-specific or 

project-specific 

considerations shall be 

noted in the project file, 

along with a rationale for 

not including them.

In this process, the 

following, among other 

things, would be 

evaluated:

1. Whether the 

conservation measure 

is “reasonable” (43 

CFR 3101.1-2) and 

consistent with valid 

existing rights

2. Whether the action is in 

conformance with the 

approved LUP; and the 

effectiveness of the 

proposed mitigation 

measures.

BLM/Forest Service Field 

Offices/District Offices 

would work with project 

proponents in these 

situations to promote 

measurable sage-grouse 

conservation objectives 

such as but not limited to 

over time, offsite 

mitigation, and expected 

periods of use associated 

with the proposed project. 

Seasonal habitats or 

project features related to 

potential sage-grouse 

impacts that are not 

addressed in the SUPO 

based on site-specific or 

project-specific 

considerations shall be 

noted in the project file, 

along with a rationale for 

not including them.

In this process the 

BLM/Forest Service would 

evaluate, among other 

things:

1. Whether the 

conservation measure 

is “reasonable” (43 

CFR 3101.1-2) and 

consistent with valid 

existing rights

2. Whether the action is in 

conformance with the 

approved LUP; and the 

effectiveness of the 

proposed mitigation 

measures.

The BLM/Forest Service

would work with project 

proponents in these 

situations to promote 

measurable sage-grouse 

conservation objectives 

such as, but not limited to, 

consolidation of project 

related infrastructure to 

reduce habitat 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-75

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

concentrated in specific 

areas. In addition, refer to 

Section 3.12.3 for 

additional mitigation 

measures that may apply 

as part of the 

transportation plan.

consolidation of project 

related infrastructure to 

reduce habitat 

fragmentation and loss 

and to promote effective 

conservation of seasonal 

habitats and connectivity 

areas that support 

population management 

objectives set by the 

State. BLM/Forest Service

would continue to work 

with project proponents 

(including those from 

within the BLM/Forest 

Service) and the WGFD to 

site their projects in 

locations that meet the 

purpose and need for their 

project, but have been 

determined to contain the 

least sensitive habitats 

and resources whether 

inside or outside of priority

habitat areas. Valid 

existing rights would be 

recognized and respected.

fragmentation and loss 

and to promote effective 

conservation of seasonal 

habitats and connectivity 

areas that support 

population management 

objectives set by the 

State.

The BLM/Forest Service

would continue to work 

with project proponents 

(including those from 

within the BLM/Forest 

Service) and the WGFD to 

site their projects in 

locations that meet the 

purpose and need for their 

project, but have been 

determined to contain the 

least sensitive habitats 

(based on vegetation, 

topography, or other 

habitat features) and 

resources whether inside 

or outside of core habitat 

areas. Valid existing rights 

would be recognized and 

respected. 

64 Field Offices would work 

with project proponents 

(including those within 

BLM/Forest Service) to site 

their projects in locations 

that minimize impacts to 

sensitive resources.

In addition to 

Alternative A:

If the lease is partially or 

entirely within priority 

habitat areas, subject to 

topographic and other 

environmental constraints, 

any development within 

priority habitat would be 

required to be placed in 

the area least harmful to 

sage-grouse based on 

vegetation, topography, or 

No similar action Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-76 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

other habitat features.

Fluid Minerals Leased Estate

65 No similar action In sage-grouse priority 

habitat, the following 

conservation measures

would be provided as 

terms and conditions of 

the approved RMP:

Do not allow new surface 

occupancy on federal 

leases within priority 

habitats, this includes 

winter concentration areas 

during any time of the 

year. 

Consider an exception: If 

the lease is entirely within 

priority habitats, apply a 4-

mile NSO around the lek.

Same as Alternative B No similar action No similar action

66 No similar action To ensure comprehensive 

planning relative to sagegrouse conflicts, Master 

Development Plans would 

be completed during 

planning and review of 

projects involving multiple 

proposed disturbances 

within a lease or priority 

habitat area, without an 

exception for individual 

wildcat (exploratory) wells.

Same as Alternative B Master development plans 

would not be required.

Master Development 

Plans would be 

considered and 

encouraged for projects 

involving multiple 

proposed disturbances 

within core habitat area.

67 No similar action Within sage-grouse 

priority habitat, unitization 

would be required when 

deemed necessary for 

proper development and 

operation of an area (with 

strong oversight and 

monitoring) to minimize 

Same as Alternative B Within sage-grouse core 

habitat, unitization for the 

orderly development of the 

mineral resource would be 

used.

Within sage-grouse core 

habitat, unitization would 

be encouraged as a 

means of minimizing 

adverse impacts to sagegrouse to reduce 

fragmentation and surface 

disturbing and disruptive 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-77

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

adverse impacts to sagegrouse according to the 

Federal Lease Form, 

3100-11, Sections 4 and 

6.

activities.

68 The BLM/Forest Service

should closely examine the 

applicability of categorical 

exclusions in core and 

general Greater SageGrouse habitat. If 

extraordinary 

circumstances review is 

applicable, the BLM/Forest 

Service should determine 

whether those 

circumstances exist.

The BLM/Forest Service

would closely examine the 

applicability of categorical 

exclusions in priority 

habitat. If extraordinary 

circumstances review is 

applicable, BLM/Forest 

Service should determine 

whether those 

circumstances exist.

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

69 Federal Regulations, 43 

CFR 3104.1 requires that a 

bond be furnished before 

any drilling or surface 

disturbance activities 

begin. The lessee,

sublessee or the operator 

must furnish a surety or 

personal bond in the 

amount of at least $10,000 

to ensure compliance with 

all the lease terms, 

including protection of the 

environment. With the 

consent of the surety and 

principal, the operator may 

use the bond of another 

party, such as the lessee.

Each time there is a new 

operator, that operator 

must notify BLM/Forest 

Service that he/she is the 

responsible operator, 

giving the particulars of the 

For future actions, a full 

reclamation bond specific 

to the site would be 

required in accordance 

with 43 CFR 3104.2, 

3104.3 and 3104.5, and 

36 CFR 228.109. The 

BLM/Forest Service would 

insure bonds are sufficient 

for costs relative to 

reclamation (Connelly et 

al. 2000, Hagen et al. 

2007) that would result in 

full restoration of the lands 

to the condition it was 

found prior to disturbance. 

The reclamation costs

would be based on the 

assumption that 

contractors for the BLM or 

Forest Service would

perform the work.

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A A reclamation bond would 

be required on all projects 

that is commensurate with 

the scope, scale, size of 

the project within sagegrouse core habitat. 

Partial bonding may be 

appropriate depending on 

these factors.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-78 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

bond under which he/she 

will operate. BLM/Forest 

Service can require an 

increase in a bond amount 

any time conditions warrant 

such an increase.

Per 36 CFR 228.109, as 

part of the review of a 

proposed surface use plan 

of operations, the 

authorized Forest officer

shall consider the 

estimated cost to the 

Forest Service to reclaim 

those areas that would be 

disturbed by operations 

and to restore any lands or 

surface waters adversely 

affected by the lease 

operations after the 

abandonment or cessation 

of operations on the lease.

If at any time prior to or 

during the conduct of 

operations, the authorized 

Forest officer determines 

the financial instrument 

held by the Bureau of Land 

Management is not 

adequate to ensure 

complete and timely 

reclamation and 

restoration, the authorized 

Forest officer shall give the 

operator the option of 

either increasing the 

financial instrument held by 

the Bureau of Land 

Management or filing a 

separate instrument with 

the Forest Service in the 

amount deemed adequate 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-79

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

by the authorized Forest 

officer to ensure 

reclamation and 

restoration. The authorized 

Forest officer shall 

consider the costs of the 

operator's proposed 

reclamation program and 

the need for additional 

measures to be taken 

when estimating the cost to 

the Forest Service to 

reclaim the disturbed area.

70 Pinedale RMP:

Produced water from 

coalbed natural gas 

(CBNG) wells will be 

treated and disposed of in 

collaboration and 

consistent with the 

requirements of the state. 

No similar action Prohibit the construction of 

evaporation or infiltration 

reservoirs to hold coalbed 

methane wastewater.

No similar action Same as Alternative A

71 Pinedale RMP:

BLM-permitted actions on 

split estate lands are 

subject to the same 

stipulations as leased 

federal mineral estate on 

federal surface lands, 

provided the stipulations do 

not adversely affect the 

surface owner’s land use 

or actions. Exceptions to 

surface development 

restrictions could be 

granted if requested or 

agreed to by the surface 

owner. 

Where the federal 

government owns the 

mineral estate and the 

surface is non-federal 

ownership, the same 

conservation measures 

would be applied as those 

applied on public land.

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A In addition to 

Alternative A: 

Where the federal 

government owns the 

mineral estate and the 

surface is under nonfederal ownership, the 

BLM/Forest Service would 

work cooperatively with 

the surface owner to apply 

the same sage-grouse 

conservation measures as 

applied on public land on 

a voluntary basis, for core 

and general habitat. 

72 MBNF LRMP:

Negotiate surface 

Where the federal 

government owns the 

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A In addition to 

Alternative A: 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-80 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

management for private oil 

and gas minerals with the 

owner and operator to be 

as close as possible to the 

standards used for federal 

minerals. 

surface and the mineral 

estate is in non-federal 

ownership, appropriate 

BMPs would be applied to 

surface development.

Where the federal 

government owns the 

surface, and the mineral 

estate is in under nonfederal ownership, the 

BLM/Forest Service would 

work cooperatively with 

permittees, lesees and 

other surface landowners 

to negotiate and apply the 

same sage-grouse 

conservation measures as 

applied on public land 

within core and general 

habitat.

Appropriate design 

features would be applied 

to mitigate surface 

disturbance.

73 No similar action No similar action Agencies would explore 

options to amend, cancel, 

or buy out leases in 

ACECs and sage-grouse 

priority and general 

habitat.

No similar action No similar action

74 No similar action No similar action Conditions that require 

relinquishment of 

leases/authorizations

would be included if doing 

so would: 1) mitigate the 

impact of a proposed 

development, or 2) 

mitigate the unanticipated 

impacts of an approved 

development.

No similar action No similar action

Solid Leasable Minerals

75 Casper RMP:

If coal development 

potential is shown to exist, 

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

In sage-grouse priority 

Same as Alternative B In addition to 

Alternative A:

Upon receipt of a coal 

Same as Alternative D
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-81

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

all BLM-administered lands 

outside the Coal 

Development Potential 

Area (CDPA) will be 

considered for coal leasing, 

unless specifically closed 

to mineral leasing. The 

coal-screening process will 

be completed on all newly 

identified lands having coal 

development potential.

All BLM-administered lands 

within the CDPA identified 

in the 2001 Buffalo RMP 

maintenance action are 

acceptable for further 

consideration for coal 

leasing. The only 

exceptions are those lands 

determined unacceptable 

within the area. The coal 

unsuitability criteria are reevaluated whenever new 

coal lease applications are 

received. 

Kemmerer RMP:

Process new coal lease 

applications by using the 

coal screening process. 

The coal screening 

process results will 

determine which lands may 

be available for further

consideration for coal 

leasing and development. 

Appropriate NEPA analysis 

would be required prior to 

leasing. Federal land within 

the proposed Haystack 

project area is determined 

acceptable for further 

habitat, find unsuitable all 

surface mining of coal 

under the criteria set forth 

in 43 CFR 3461.5.

In general habitat, apply 

minimization of surfacedisturbing or disrupting 

activities (including 

operations and 

maintenance) where 

needed to reduce the 

impacts of human 

activities on important 

seasonal sage-grouse 

habitats. Apply these 

measures during activitylevel planning.

Use additional, effective 

mitigation to offset impacts 

as appropriate 

(determined by local 

options/needs).

lease application in sagegrouse core areas, 43 

CFR 3461.5, Criterion 15 

would be applied and the 

area would be identified 

as suitable for further coal 

leasing consideration after 

consultation with the state 

and where applicable, 

surface management 

agency, to determine that 

all or certain stipulated 

methods of coal mining 

will not have a significant 

long-term impact on the 

sage-grouse. Special 

conditions could be 

required as identified

during the leasing process 

to protect sage-grouse 

resources.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-82 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

consideration for coal 

leasing and development. 

No coal LBAs will be 

considered for Rock 

Creek/Tunp and Bear River 

Divide management areas.

Pinedale RMP:

Decisions on lands 

acceptable for leasing 

consideration for coal 

development will be made 

after an application is 

received and the coal 

screening process is 

conducted.

Rawlins RMP:

Federal coal lease 

applications will be 

accepted only on those 

federal coal lands with 

development potential 

identified as suitable for 

further leasing 

consideration after 

application of the coal 

unsuitability criteria (the 

above-mentioned 

approximately 51,250 

acres and 2,318.7 million 

tons of surface minable 

federal coal).

Green River RMP/JMH 

CAP:

Federal coal lands within 

the Coal Occurrence and 

Development Potential 

area (about 422,000 acres) 

are open to further 

consideration for coal 

leasing and development 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-83

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

(i.e., new competitive 

leasing, emergency 

leasing, lease 

modifications, and 

exchange proposals, under 

the Federal Coal 

Management Program) 

with appropriate and 

necessary conditions and 

requirements for protection 

of other land and resource 

values and uses.

BTNF LRMP:

Coal Leasing Standard -

Coal leasing will be 

allowed. Strip mining will 

not be permitted unless no 

other mining options exist.

Numerous areas closed to 

leasing of solid minerals.

76 Casper RMP:

If coal development 

potential is shown to exist, 

all BLM-administered lands 

outside the CDPA will be 

considered for coal leasing, 

unless specifically closed

to mineral leasing. The 

coal-screening process will 

be completed on all newly 

identified lands having coal 

development potential.

All BLM-administered lands 

within the CDPA identified 

in the 2001 Buffalo RMP 

maintenance action are 

acceptable for further 

consideration for coal 

leasing. The only 

exceptions are those lands 

In addition to 

Alternative A:

No new underground 

mining leases would be 

granted unless all surface 

disturbances (appurtenant 

facilities) are placed 

outside of the sage-grouse 

priority habitat area.

Where new appurtenant 

facilities associated with 

the existing lease cannot 

be located outside the 

sage-grouse priority 

habitat area, new facilities 

would be co-located within 

existing disturbed areas. If 

this is not possible, any 

new appurtenant facilities 

would be constructed to 

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A In addition to 

Alternative A: 

Upon receipt of a coal 

lease application 

proposing underground 

mining methods that 

include surface operations 

and impacts within sagegrouse core habitat areas, 

Criterion 15 would be 

applied and the area 

would be identified as 

suitable for further coal 

leasing consideration after 

consultation with the state 

and, where applicable, 

surface management 

agency to determine that 

all or certain stipulated 

methods of coal mining
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-84 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

determined unacceptable 

within the area. The coal 

unsuitability criteria are reevaluated whenever new 

coal lease applications are 

received. 

Kemmerer RMP:

Process new coal lease 

applications by using the 

coal screening process. 

The coal screening 

process results will 

determine which lands may 

be available for further 

consideration for coal 

leasing and development. 

Appropriate NEPA analysis 

would be required prior to 

leasing. Federal land within 

the proposed Haystack 

project area is determined 

acceptable for further 

consideration for coal 

leasing and development. 

No coal LBAs will be 

considered for Rock 

Creek/Tunp and Bear River 

Divide management areas.

Pinedale RMP:

Decisions on lands 

acceptable for leasing 

consideration for coal 

development will be made 

after an application is 

received and the coal 

screening process is 

conducted.

Rawlins RMP:

Federal coal lease 

applications will be 

the absolute minimum 

standard necessary. 

Where BLM/Forest 

Service identifies 

development of coal using 

underground mining

methods, the BLM/Forest 

Service would consider 

the potential surface 

operations and surface 

impacts, and unsuitability 

Criterion No. 15 applies, 

the lands would be 

assessed as unsuitable 

unless the surface 

management agency finds 

that a relevant exception 

or exemption applies. See 

43 CFR 3461.1(b).

will not have a significant 

long-term impact on sagegrouse. Stipulated 

methods may include, but 

not limited to, 

underground mining 

methods with no 

placement of surface 

facilities.

Unsuitability is not applied 

to underground operations 

without surface impacts 

(43 CFR 3461.1) This 

would be consistent with 

IM WY WY-2012-019 says 

that the BLM/Forest 

Service will assess 

potential impacts to sagegrouse through the NEPA 

process, and that the 

State regulatory agency 

would apply this 

mitigation, as well 

protective measures 

consistent with the State 

Policy for solid leasable 

mining action at the 

permitting stage.
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-85

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

accepted only on those 

federal coal lands with 

development potential 

identified as suitable for 

further leasing 

consideration after 

application of the coal 

unsuitability criteria (the 

above-mentioned 

approximately 51,250 

acres and 2,318.7 million 

tons of surface minable 

federal coal).

Green River RMP/JMH 

CAP:

Federal coal lands within 

the Coal Occurrence and 

Development Potential 

area (about 422,000 acres) 

are open to further 

consideration for coal 

leasing and development 

(i.e., new competitive 

leasing, emergency 

leasing, lease 

modifications, and 

exchange proposals, under 

the Federal Coal 

Management Program) 

with appropriate and 

necessary conditions and 

requirements for protection 

of other land and resource 

values and uses.

BTNF LRMP:

Coal Leasing Standard -

Coal leasing will be 

allowed. Strip mining will 

not be permitted unless no 

other mining options exist.

Numerous areas closed to 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-86 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

leasing of solid minerals.

77 Coal exploration activities 

are allowed in sage-grouse

core habitat with applicable 

stipulations.

Coal exploration activities 

would not be allowed in 

sage-grouse priority 

habitat.

No similar action Same as Alternative A Coal exploration activities 

could be allowed in sagegrouse core habitats if 

they can be completed in 

compliance to surface 

occupancy and 

disturbance and density 

stipulations analyzed 

through the DDCT 

process.

Solid Leasable Minerals (Other than Coal and Oil Shale)

78 Leasing of non-energy 

leasable minerals would be 

considered within sagegrouse core habitat areas, 

except in areas that are 

unavailable for leasing due 

to the need to protect 

sensitive resources 

(Map 2-24).

Kemmerer RMP:

Sodium: All public lands 

(outside of the Raymond 

Mountain WSA and 

exceptions identified 

below) within the planning 

area are available for 

sodium leasing 

consideration. Exploration 

for sodium will be 

considered on a case-bycase basis. Limited surface 

occupancy criteria 

contained in the Sodium 

Mineral Development 

Environmental Assessment 

will be applied on a caseby-case basis. No new 

Priority habitat would be 

closed to non-energy 

leasable mineral leasing.

This would include not 

permitting any new leases 

to expand an existing 

mine (Map 2-25).

Same as Alternative B 

(Map 2-26)

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

Exploration licenses and 

prospecting permits would 

be considered with 

appropriate mitigating 

measures.

All non-energy leasable

mineral activities would be 

considered in sage-grouse 

core habitats, provided 

that the activities can be 

completed in compliance 

to surface occupancy and 

disturbance and density 

stipulations (Map 2-27) 

analyzed through the 

DDCT process.

Same as Alternative D 

(Map 2-28)
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-87

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

sodium leases or 

exploration licenses may 

be issued on lands within 

the Raymond Mountain 

WSA. No new sodium 

exploration and leasing will 

be considered for Rock 

Creek/Tunp and Bear River 

Divide management areas.

Phosphate: All public lands 

(outside of the Raymond 

Mountain WSA and 

exceptions identified 

below) within the planning 

area are available for 

phosphate leasing 

consideration. Exploration 

for phosphate will be 

considered on a case-bycase basis. No new 

phosphate exploration and 

leasing will be considered 

for Rock Creek/Tunp and 

Bear River Divide 

management areas.

Pinedale RMP:

Should interest in other 

leasable minerals 

materialize in the future, 

leasing will be considered 

on a case-by-case basis, 

and the RMP will be 

amended as appropriate 

and necessary. The same 

surface disturbance 

restrictions will be used in 

analyzing leasing 

proposals and determining 

the issuance of any leases 

(for example, geothermal 

steam, coal, sodium, oil 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-88 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

shale, and phosphate). 

Green River RMP/JMH 

CAP:

The known sodium leasing 

area is open to exploration 

and consideration for 

leasing and developments, 

but is closed to prospecting 

permits. 

The remainder of the 

planning area is open to 

sodium prospecting except 

for areas that are closed to 

mineral leasing, surface 

mining, or mechanical 

prospecting type activities 

(areas closed to drilling, off 

road vehicle use, and 

explosive charges).

Sodium (trona) leasing will 

be considered on a caseby-case basis, and is 

subject to the same 

conditional requirements 

as oil and gas and coal, 

and the general 

management direction 

applied in this RMP.

Locatable Mineral Activities

79 Portions of sage-grouse 

core habitat are withdrawn 

from mineral entry for the 

protection of sensitive 

resources (Map 2-19).

In priority habitat, 

withdrawal from mineral 

entry would be proposed 

based on risk to the sagegrouse and its habitat from 

conflicting locatable 

mineral potential and 

development (Map 2-20).

Existing [mining] claims

would be made within the 

Same as Alternative B 

(Map 2-21)

Same as Alternative A 

(Map 2-22)

The withdrawal of sagegrouse core habitat areas 

from mineral entry would 

be considered for 

recommendation, based 

on risk to sage-grouse and 

its habitat from conflicting 

locatable mineral potential 

and development (Map 2-

23).
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-89

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

withdrawal area subject to 

validity exams or buy out. 

Claims that have been 

subsequently determined 

to be null and void in the 

recommended withdrawal

would be included.

In plans of operations 

required prior to any 

proposed surface 

disturbing activities, the 

following would be 

included:

1. Additional, effective 

mitigation in perpetuity 

for conservation (In 

accordance with 

existing policy, WO IM 

2008-204). (Example:

purchase private land 

and mineral rights or 

severed subsurface 

mineral rights within 

the priority area and 

deed to US 

Government).

Seasonal restrictions

would be considered if 

deemed effective.

Operators may be 

requested to submit 

modifications to the 

accepted notice or 

approved plan of 

operations so that the 

operations minimally 

impact sage-grouse core 

area habitats. The AO 

may convey to the 

operator suggested 

conservation measures, 

based upon the notice or 

plan level operations and 

the geographic area of 

those operations [also 

called the project area 

which is defined in 43 

CFR 3809.5 and 36 CFR 

228.3. 

These suggested

conservation measures 

include measures that 

support the overall goals 

and objectives of the core 

population area strategy, 

though measures listed for 

protection of sage-grouse 

breeding, nesting, broodrearing, and wintering may 

not be reasonable or 

applicable to the 

BLM/Forest Service’s 

determination of whether 

the proposed operations 

will cause unnecessary or 

undue degradation under 

43 CFR 3809.5 and 36 

CFR 228.3. The request 

containing the suggested 

conservation measures 

must make clear that the 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-90 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

operator’s compliance is 

not mandatory. 

Notices or Plans of 

Operation, or 

modifications thereto, 

submitted following the 

issuance of this guidance: 

As part of the 15 day 

completeness review of 

notices [or modifications 

thereto] and 30 day 

completeness review of 

plans of operations [or 

modifications thereto], the 

proposed project area(s) 

where exploration, 

development, mining, 

access and reclamation 

would take place should 

be reviewed for overlap of 

sage-grouse core areas in 

the corporate GIS 

database. If there is 

overlap, the BLM/Forest 

Service AO may notify the 

operator of ways that they 

may minimize impacts to 

core area habitats and 

request the operator to 

amend its notice or plan to 

include such measures. 

The request to amend the 

submitted notice or plan of 

operations must make 

clear that the operator’s 

compliance is not 

mandatory and that 

including such measures 

is not a requirement for 

completeness of either the 

notice or a plan of 

operations, nor is it a 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-91

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

condition of acceptance of 

the notice or approval of 

the plan of operations.

Saleable Minerals

80 Sage-grouse core habitat 

areas would be open to 

mineral material 

exploration, sales, and free 

use permits, except in 

areas that are unavailable 

due to the need to protect

other resource values 

(Map 2-14).

Sage-grouse priority 

habitat areas would be 

closed to mineral material 

exploration, sales, and 

free use permits subject to 

valid existing rights 

(Map 2-15).

Same as Alternative B 

(Map 2-16)

Same as Alternative A 

(Map 2-17)

In addition to 

Alternative A:

All salable mineral 

activities within core 

habitat areas would be 

considered, provided they 

can be completed in 

compliance within surface 

occupancy, seasonal 

restrictions, and

disturbance and density 

stipulations (Map 2-18) 

analyzed through the 

DDCT process.

81 Saleable mineral pits no 

longer in use will continue 

to be available for use for 

other resource uses.

In sage-grouse priority 

habitat, saleable mineral 

pits no longer in use would 

be restored to meet sagegrouse habitat 

conservation objectives.

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A Closure and restoration of 

saleable mineral pits no 

longer in use would be 

considered to meet sagegrouse habitat 

conservation objectives. 

Emphasis would be given 

to reclamation/restoration 

of sage-grouse core 

habitat as a viable long 

term goal to improve 

sage-grouse habitat.

Recreation and Visitor Services

Outdoor Recreation Management

82 Casper RMP:

The entire planning area 

will remain open to 

dispersed recreation. The 

camping limit on public 

lands is set by BLM policy 

BLM Special Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) and 

Forest Service Recreation 

Special Use 

Authorizations (RSUAs) 

would only be allowed in 

Same as Alternative B In addition to 

Alternative A:

BLM SRPs and Forest 

Service Recreation SUAs 

would be approved in 

sage-grouse core habitat 

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

BLM SRPs and Forest 

Service Recreation SUAs 

would be allowed in sagegrouse core habitat, 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-92 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

and is currently limited to 

14 days. Emphasis will be 

placed on providing 

interpretive and information 

signs and materials for 

public land visitors, 

maintaining existing 

facilities to a high standard 

consistent with the 

recreational setting, and 

limiting development of 

additional facilities to those 

areas where public 

recreational use of 

surrounding public lands 

requires. Work with state, 

local groups, and adjacent 

landowners will be 

conducted to identify and 

develop recreational trails, 

both motorized and nonmotorized, when the 

opportunities presents 

themselves. SRPs will be 

allowed for commercial, 

noncommercial, and 

competitive events on a 

case-by-case basis. 

Cooperation will be 

maintained with a variety of 

user groups, especially in 

the local area, to provide 

diverse recreational 

opportunities for enjoyment 

of public lands. BLM will 

pursue acquisition of lands 

and interest in lands in the 

Rattlesnake Range and 

Pine Ridge areas, as well 

as promote and support 

recreation-based tourism. 

priority habitat where they 

would have neutral or 

beneficial effects to priority 

habitat areas.

on a case by case basis 

consistent with other 

resource values.

unless negative impacts to 

sage-grouse cannot be 

adequately mitigated.
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-93

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Kemmerer RMP:

Allow dispersed recreation 

and permit special 

recreational activities (e.g., 

outfitting and guiding 

permits and OHV events 

permitted on an annual 

basis after evaluation).

Green River RMP:

Special recreation permits 

will be considered on a 

case-by-case basis. 

Appropriate mitigation will 

be included in special 

recreation permits, 

commercial recreation 

uses, and major 

competitive recreation 

events to provide resource 

protection and public 

safety. 

JMH CAP:

Special recreation use 

permits for managed 

activities that occur in the 

JMH CAP planning area 

will be reviewed and 

subject to 

recommendations made by 

the Rock Springs Field 

Office. This will allow the 

Rock Springs Field Office

to track the amount, 

location, and timing of 

organized activity occurring 

within the planning area to 

monitor resource pressure. 

The permit evaluation 

process will consider the 

nature of the event, 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-94 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

potential impacts to 

resources, conflicts with 

other events, and impacts 

to the quality of other 

visitors’ experiences. 

Mitigation measures 

necessary to protect the 

resources will be included 

in any permit issued. A 

plan of operation will be 

required for all commercial 

recreational operators and 

outfitters. The plan will 

describe the type, extent, 

and location of the 

recreation use and the 

mechanisms by which the 

operator/outfitter will 

prevent impacts to 

environmental resources. 

Any requests in special 

recreation use permit 

applications to remove 

natural resources will be 

evaluated on a case-bycase basis after an 

environmental analysis 

process.

TBNG LRMP:

To reduce disturbances to 

nesting sage-grouse, do 

not authorize the following 

activities within 2.0 miles of 

active display grounds from 

March 1 to June 15:

Permitted recreation 

events involving large 

groups of people.

Manage display ground 

viewing activities to reduce 

disturbances and adverse 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-95

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

impacts to the birds on the 

display grounds. 

83 No similar action No similar action Camping and other nonmotorized recreation 

would be seasonally 

prohibited within 4 miles of 

active sage-grouse leks.

No similar action No similar action

Special Designations and Other Management Areas

84 No similar action All sage-grouse priority 

habitat areas would be 

designated as sagegrouse conservation 

ACECs/SIAs (Map 2-34).

All sage-grouse priority 

habitat areas and 

Audubon Important Bird 

Areas would be 

designated as sagegrouse conservation 

ACECs/SIAs (Map 2-35).

New sage-grouse 

conservation ACECs/SIAs 

would not be designated.

Same as Alternative D

85 No similar action No similar action Large ACECs/SIAs would 

be designated to preserve, 

protect, conserve, restore, 

and sustain sage-grouse 

populations and the 

sagebrush ecosystem on 

which the sage-grouse 

relies. 

No similar action No similar action

Travel Management

86 The following areas would 

be managed as OHV 

“open” areas:

1. Casper Field Office: 

Poison Spider OHV 

Park (290 acres)

2. Rawlins Field Office: 

Dune Pond Cooperative 

Management Area 

(3,740 acres)

3. Rock Springs Field 

Office: Portion of the 

Greater Sand Dunes 

Recreation Area (530

All OHV “open” areas 

within sage-grouse priority

habitat areas would be 

designated as limited to 

designated roads and 

trails.

These areas would 

include the following:

1. Casper Field Office: 

Poison Spider OHV 

Park (290 acres)

2. Rawlins Field Office: 

Dune Pond Cooperative 

Management Area 

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A The Casper Field Office 

Poison Spider OHV Park 

(290 acres) would remain 

as an “open” OHV area.

The non-sand dune 

portions of the following 

OHV “open” areas within 

sage-grouse core habitat 

areas would be limited to 

existing roads and trails:

1. Rawlins Field Office: 

Dune Pond 

Cooperative 

Management Area.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-96 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

acres). (3,740 acres)

3. Rock Springs Field 

Office: Portion of the 

Greater Sand Dunes 

Recreation Area (530

acres).

4. The sand dune portions 

of these areas where 

roads do not exist would 

continue to be managed 

as OHV “open” areas.

2. Rock Springs Field 

Office: Portion of the 

Greater Sand Dunes 

Recreation Area.

87 Limit motorized travel to 

existing roads, primitive 

roads, and trails at a 

minimum, until such time 

as travel management 

planning is complete and 

routes are either 

designated or closed.

Motorized travel would be 

limited to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and trails 

at a minimum, until such 

time as travel 

management planning is 

complete and routes are 

either designated or 

closed.

Activity level travel plans 

would be completed within 

five years of the record of 

decision. During activity 

level planning, where 

appropriate, routes would 

be designated in priority 

habitat with current 

administrative/agency 

purpose or need to 

administrative access 

only.

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

88 Casper Field Office:

Avoid surface disturbance 

or occupancy within 0.25

mile of the perimeter of 

occupied sage-grouse leks. 

Surface disturbing activity 

is restricted or prohibited 

No similar action New road construction 

would be prohibited within 

4 miles of active sagegrouse leks, and new road 

construction would be 

avoided in sage-grouse 

priority and general 

New roads would be 

avoided within 0.25 miles 

of the perimeter of 

occupied sage-grouse 

leks within sage-grouse 

core habitat areas.

New primary and 

secondary (BLM route 

category) or Route 

Category level 4 and 5 

(Forest Service) roads 

would be avoided within 

1.9 miles of the perimeter 

of occupied sage-grouse 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-97

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

within 0.75 miles of 

occupied sage-grouse leks 

in Bates Hole and Fish 

Creek/Willow Creek.

Occupied sage-grouse leks 

in Bates Hole and Fish 

Creek/Willow Creek will 

have a 4-mile buffer. Within 

this buffer, surface 

disturbing activities will be 

avoided within 4 miles of 

occupied sage-grouse leks 

in areas with sagebrush 

stands greater than 10%

canopy cover.

Avoid surface-disturbing 

and disruptive activities in 

suitable sage-grouse 

nesting and early broodrearing habitats within 2 

miles of an occupied lek, or 

in identified sage-grouse 

nesting and early broodrearing habitats outside the 

2-mile buffer from March 

15 to July 15 (timing 

limitation stipulation [TLS]).

Kemmerer Field Office: 

Avoid surface disturbance 

or occupancy within 0.25

mile of the perimeter of

occupied Greater SageGrouse leks.

Newcastle Field Office:

Avoid surface disturbance 

or occupancy within 0.25

mile of the perimeter or 

occupied sage-grouse leks.

Pinedale Field Office:

habitat. leks within sage-grouse 

core habitat areas.

Other new roads would be 

avoided within 0.6 miles of 

the perimeter of occupied 

sage-grouse leks within 

core habitat areas.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-98 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Surface disturbing activities 

in Traditional Leasing 

Areas and Unavailable 

Areas are prohibited in 

suitable habitat within 0.25

mile of occupied leks.

Rawlins Field Office:

Surface disturbing activities 

or occupancy are 

prohibited on and within 

0.25 mile of the perimeter 

of an occupied Greater 

Sage-Grouse lek.

Green River RMP/JMH 

CAP:

Active grouse leks (sageand sharp-tail grouse) and 

the area within a 0.25 mile 

of the perimeter of active 

leks are avoidance areas 

for surface disturbing 

activities.

Surface occupancy (longterm or permanent 

aboveground facilities) in 

the Jack Morrow Hills 

planning area will be 

prohibited within 0.25 mile 

of the perimeter of Greater 

Sage-Grouse leks unless 

adverse impacts can be 

mitigated. Distances will be 

subject to change on a 

case-by-case basis 

dependent on applicable 

scientific research and sitespecific analysis.

TBNG LRMP:

To help reduce adverse 

impacts to breeding sage-
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-99

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

grouse and their display 

grounds, prohibit 

construction of new oil and 

gas facilities within 0.25

mile of active display 

grounds. A display ground 

is no longer considered 

active if it’s known to have 

been unoccupied during 

the past 5 breeding 

seasons. This does not 

apply to pipelines and 

underground utilities. 

Roads are included in oil 

and gas facilities.

89 Kemmerer RMP:

Designated roads would 

not be upgraded. Any 

improvements to the 

roadways would require 

further analysis.

Within sage-grouse 

priority habitat, no 

upgrading of existing 

routes that would change 

route category (road, 

primitive road, or trail) or 

capacity would be allowed 

unless the upgrading 

would have minimal 

impact on sage-grouse in 

sage-grouse priority 

habitat, was necessary for 

motorist safety, or 

eliminated the need to 

construct a new road.

Within priority and general 

sage-grouse habitat, no 

upgrading of existing 

routes that would change 

route category (road, 

primitive road, or trail) or 

capacity would be allowed 

unless it was necessary 

for motorist safety or 

eliminated the need to 

construct a new road. Any 

impacts would be 

mitigated with methods 

that have been 

demonstrated to be 

effective to offset the loss 

of sage-grouse habitat.

Within sage-grouse core 

and general habitat, 

upgrading of existing 

routes would be allowed 

based on other resource 

uses.

Within sage-grouse core 

habitat, no upgrading of 

existing routes that would 

change route category 

(BLM route category: 

road, primitive road, or 

trail; Forest Service route 

category: level 1, level 2,

or level 3) or capacity 

would be allowed unless 

the upgrading would have 

minimal impact on sagegrouse in sage-grouse 

core habitat, was 

necessary for motorist 

safety, or eliminated the 

need to construct a new 

road.

90 No similar action In priority habitat, existing 

roads or realignments as 

described above would be 

used to access valid 

existing rights that are not 

yet developed. If valid 

existing rights could not be 

accessed via existing 

Within priority and general 

sage-grouse, route 

construction would be 

limited to realignments of 

existing designated routes 

if that realignment has a 

minimal impact on sagegrouse habitat, eliminates 

No similar action In sage-grouse core 

habitat, existing roads or 

realignments would be 

used to access valid 

existing rights that are not 

yet developed. If valid 

existing rights could not be 

accessed via existing 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-100 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

roads, any new road 

would be constructed to 

the absolute minimum 

standard necessary, and 

the surface disturbance 

would be added to the 

total disturbance in the 

priority area. If that 

disturbance exceeds 3%

for that area, additional, 

effective mitigation 

necessary would be 

evaluated or implemented 

to offset the resulting loss 

of sage-grouse habitat. 

the need to construct a 

new road, or is necessary 

for motorist safety. 

Impacts would be 

mitigated with methods 

that have been 

demonstrated to be 

effective to offset the loss 

of sage-grouse habitat.

roads, any new road 

would be constructed to 

the absolute minimum 

standard necessary, and 

the surface disturbance 

would be added to the 

total disturbance in the 

sage-grouse core habitat 

area. If that disturbance 

exceeds 5% for that area, 

additional, effective 

mitigation necessary 

would be evaluated and 

implemented to offset the 

resulting loss of sagegrouse habitat.

91 Kemmerer RMP:

Roads and two-track 

routes determined to be 

unauthorized or redundant 

and unnecessary for 

resource management 

purposes will be reclaimed 

to achieve surrounding 

native conditions.

Rawlins RMP:

Roads or trails that are 

eroding beyond a 

reasonable level will be 

fixed or closed. 

JMH CAP:

Transportation planning will 

provide for access to 

achieve multiple-use goals 

while providing maximum 

protection for crucial 

habitats and sensitive 

resources and will 

consider:

In priority habitat, 

restoration of roads, 

primitive roads and trails 

not designated in travel 

management plans would 

be conducted. This would 

include primitive 

route/roads that were not 

designated in Wilderness 

Study Areas and within 

lands with wilderness 

characteristics that had 

been selected for 

protections in previous 

RMPs.

Same as Alternative B Within sage-grouse core 

and general habitat, 

natural deterioration of 

roads not designated in 

travel management plans 

would be allowed.

In addition to 

Alternative A:

For roads, primitive roads 

and trails not designated 

in travel management 

plans within sage-grouse 

core habitat areas, natural

reclamation of roads and 

trails would be allowed in 

appropriate situations 

where additional resource

damage is not

foreseeable. 

This would include 

primitive route/roads that 

were not designated in

Wilderness Study Areas

and within lands with

wilderness characteristics 

that have been selected to 

be managed to retain 

those characteristics for

protection.

Kemmerer RMP: Roads 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-101

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Closing and rehabilitating 

unused roads and trails 

and those causing 

resource damage. This will 

be subject to county review 

of existing rights-of-way 

needs. 

BTNF LRMP:

Minerals - Reclamation 

Standard - Disturbed area 

will be returned to near 

pre-construction 

conditions, unless changed 

conditions would benefit 

other resources.

and two-track routes 

determined to be

unauthorized or redundant 

and unnecessary for

resource management

purposes would be

reclaimed to achieve

surrounding native

conditions.

92 BTNF LRMP:

Soil, Water, Air -

Rehabilitation Standard: 

Rehabilitation seed mixes 

or other plantings will be 

designed for each 

vegetation community type 

that meets desired future 

condition.

Within sage-grouse 

priority habitats, when 

reseeding roads, primitive 

roads and trails, 

appropriate seed mixes 

(appropriate for sagegrouse ecological 

conditions) would be used 

and the use of 

transplanted sagebrush 

would be considered.

Within sage-grouse 

priority and general 

habitat, when reseeding 

closed roads, primitive 

roads and trails, 

appropriate native seed 

mixes and require the use 

of transplanted sagebrush 

would be used.

Within sage-grouse core 

and general habitat, 

natural reseeding would 

apply.

Within sage-grouse core 

habitats, when reseeding 

roads and trails, 

appropriate seed mixtures 

would be used and the

use of transplanted 

sagebrush would be 

considered.

Vegetation Management

93 Casper RMP:

Bates Hole and Fish 

Creek/Willow Creek: 

The areas will have priority 

for vegetative treatments to 

improve sage-grouse 

habitats and for vegetation 

monitoring to ensure 

residual herbaceous 

vegetation is maintained 

for nesting cover on public 

lands.

In sage-grouse priority 

habitat, the BLM/Forest 

Service would manage for 

vegetation composition 

and structure consistent 

with ecological site 

potential and within the 

reference state to achieve 

sage-grouse seasonal 

habitat objectives. 

No similar action Within sage-grouse core 

habitat, the BLM/Forest 

Service would manage for 

vegetation composition 

and structure that reflects 

desired plant community 

or comparable standard.

Within sage-grouse core 

and general habitat, the 

BLM/Forest Service would 

manage for vegetation 

composition and structure 

that reflects ESD or other 

methods that reference 

site potential or 

comparable standard to 

achieve sage-grouse and 

other resource objectives.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-102 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

TBNG LRMP:

Pastures will be managed 

for sage-grouse/big 

sagebrush only if they 

contain sagebrush stands 

with 5% or more canopy 

cover of big sagebrush.

During vegetation 

management projects, 

maintain or increase the 

size of big sagebrush 

patches in sage-grouse

habitat.

When conducting 

vegetation management 

projects, maintain small 

opening within big 

sagebrush stands at a 

maximum ratio of 1 acre of 

opening to 3 acres of 

shrub.

Manage for high vegetative 

structure in areas where it 

would enhance sagegrouse nesting habitat.

Emphasize areas 

characterized by: Presence 

of moderate to highly 

productive soils and range 

sites; Plant composition 

dominated by mid and/or 

tall grasses, with 

sagebrush canopy cover of 

15 – 25%; Proximity to 

sage-grouse display 

grounds.

94 TBNG LRMP:

In big sagebrush and sagegrouse wintering habitat, 

do not prescribe burn or 

In priority habitat, fuels 

treatments would be 

designed and 

implemented with an 

Within priority and general 

sage-grouse habitat, 

sagebrush canopy cover 

would not be reduced to 

No similar action Within sage-grouse core 

habitat in northeast 

Wyoming, vegetation 

treatments in nesting and 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-103

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

treat with herbicides unless 

it can be demonstrated to 

be beneficial for local sagegrouse populations.

Treatments should not be 

conducted where shrub 

canopy cover of sagebrush 

averages less than 15%.

Limit treatments to less 

than 80-acre patches and 

no more than 20% of the 

sagebrush stands in the 

wintering habitat. Big 

sagebrush stands within 

100 yards of meadows, 

riparian areas, and other 

foraging habitats should 

not be burned or sprayed.

emphasis on protecting 

existing sagebrush 

ecosystems.

Sagebrush canopy cover 

would not be reduced to 

less than 15% (Connelly 

et al. 2000, Hagen et al. 

2007) unless a fuels 

management objective 

requires additional 

reduction in sagebrush 

cover to meet strategic 

protection of priority sagegrouse habitat and 

conserve habitat quality 

for the species. The 

benefits of the fuel break 

would be closely 

evaluated against the 

additional loss of 

sagebrush cover in future 

NEPA documents.

less than 15% unless a 

fuels management 

objective requires 

additional reduction in 

sagebrush cover to meet 

strategic protection of 

priority and general sagegrouse habitat and 

conserve habitat quality 

for the species.

The benefits of the fuel 

break would be closely 

evaluated against the 

additional loss of 

sagebrush cover in the EA 

process.

wintering habitat that 

would reduce sagebrush 

canopy to less than 15%

would not be conducted.

95 Green River RMP:

Prescribed burns generally 

will be conducted in areas 

having greater than 35%

sagebrush composition, 

20% desirable grass 

composition, and greater 

than 10 inches of 

precipitation. Other 

vegetation manipulation 

methods will be considered 

on a case-by-case basis 

depending on objectives 

and cost benefits. 

Casper RMP:

Decision 4053: The areas 

(Bates Hole and Fish 

Creek/Willow Creek) will 

In priority habitat, only 

treatments that conserve, 

enhance or restore sagegrouse habitat would be 

allowed (this includes 

treatments that benefit 

livestock as part of an 

AMP/Conservation Plan to 

improve sage-grouse 

habitat).

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

Within sage-grouse 

priority and general 

habitat, the BLM/Forest 

Service would ensure that 

vegetation treatments 

create landscape patterns 

which most benefit sagegrouse. 

Only treatments that are 

demonstrated to benefit 

sage-grouse and retain 

sagebrush height and 

cover consistent with 

sage-grouse habitat 

objectives would be 

allowed (this includes 

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

For vegetation treatments 

in sagebrush within core 

habitat areas, refer to 

Attachment 6 – WGFD 

Protocols for Treating 

Sagebrush to Benefit 

Sage-Grouse (WGFD 

2011, as updated). These 

recommended protocols 

would be used in 

determining whether 

proposed treatment 

constitutes a “disturbance” 

that will contribute toward 

the 9% threshold for 

habitat maintenance.

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

For vegetation treatments 

in sagebrush within core 

habitat areas, refer to 

Appendix A, WGFD 

Protocols for Treating 

Sagebrush to Benefit 

Sage-Grouse (WGFD 

2011, as updated) and 

BLM Washington Office

Instruction Memorandum 

2013 128 and Forest 

Service 2013 Sage-grouse 

Conservation Methods

(Sage-grouse 

Conservation Related to 

Wildland Fire and Fuels 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-104 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

have priority for vegetative 

treatments to improve 

sage-grouse habitats and 

for vegetation monitoring to 

ensure residual 

herbaceous vegetation is 

maintained for nesting 

cover on public lands.

MBNF LRMP:

When managing 

vegetation, maintain 

existing, or move towards 

desired patch size, 

distribution, abundance,

and/or edge-to-interior 

ratios, which are 

characteristic of natural 

disturbances (fire, insects, 

and diseases) 

representative of the cover 

types, measured at the 

Geographic Area scale. 

treatments that benefit 

livestock as part of an 

AMP/Conservation Plan to 

improve sage-grouse 

habitat).

Additionally, these 

protocols would be used 

to determine whether the 

proposed treatment 

configuration would be 

expected to have neutral 

or beneficial impacts for 

core populations or if they 

represent additional 

habitat loss or 

fragmentation. 

Treatments to enhance 

sagebrush/grasslands 

habitat for sage-grouse 

would be evaluated based 

upon habitat quality and 

the functionality/use of 

treated habitats posttreatment. 

The BLM/Forest Service

would work collaboratively 

with partners at the state 

and local level to maintain 

and enhance sage-grouse 

habitats in a manner 

consistent with the core 

population area strategy 

for conservation.

Management).

These recommended 

protocols would be used in 

determining whether 

proposed treatment 

constitutes a “disturbance” 

that would contribute 

toward the 5% threshold 

within sage-grouse core 

habitat maintenance. 

Additionally, these 

protocols would be used 

to determine whether the 

proposed treatment 

configuration would be 

expected to have neutral 

or beneficial impacts for 

core populations or if they 

represent additional 

habitat loss or 

fragmentation. 

Treatments to enhance 

sagebrush/grasslands

habitat for sage-grouse 

would be evaluated based 

upon habitat quality and 

the functionality/use of 

treated habitats posttreatment. 

The BLM and the Forest 

Service would work 

collaboratively with 

partners at the state and 

local level to maintain and 

enhance sage-grouse 

habitats.

96 Casper RMP:

Bates Hole and Fish 

Creek/Willow Creek:

As sage-grouse winter 

Treatments would not be 

allowed in known sagegrouse winter range 

unless the treatments are 

Fuels treatments would 

not be allowed in known 

sage-grouse winter range 

unless the treatments are 

No similar action For vegetation treatments 

in sagebrush within core 

habitat areas, refer to 

Attachment 6 – WGFD 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-105

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

habitats are designated, a 

TLS will restrict activities 

from November 15 to 

March 14. Within the 

designated winter habitats, 

CSU for surface disturbing 

activities in sagebrush 

stands of greater than 20%

canopy cover.

TBNG LRMP:

In big sagebrush and sagegrouse wintering habitat, 

do not prescribe burn or 

treat with herbicides unless 

it can be demonstrated to 

be beneficial for local sagegrouse populations.

Treatments should not be 

conducted where shrub 

canopy cover of sagebrush 

averages less than 15%.

Limit treatments to less 

than 80-acre patches and 

no more than 20% of the 

sagebrush stands in the 

wintering habitat. Big 

sagebrush within 100 yards 

of meadows, riparian 

areas, and other foraging 

habitats should not be 

burned or sprayed.

designed to strategically 

reduce wildfire risk around 

or in the winter range and 

would maintain winter 

range habitat quality.

designed to strategically 

reduce wildfire risk around 

or in the winter range and 

would maintain winter 

range habitat quality. 

Protocols for Treating 

Sagebrush to Benefit 

Sage-Grouse (WGFD 

2011, as updated). These 

recommended protocols, 

subject to seasonal 

conditions of approval, 

would be used in 

determining whether 

proposed treatment 

constitutes a “disturbance” 

that would contribute 

toward the 5% threshold 

for habitat maintenance. 

Additionally, these 

protocols would be used 

to determine whether the 

proposed treatment 

configuration would be 

expected to have neutral 

or beneficial impacts for 

core populations or if they 

represent additional 

habitat loss or 

fragmentation. 

Treatments to enhance 

sagebrush/grasslands 

habitat for sage-grouse 

would be evaluated based 

upon habitat quality and 

the functionality/use of 

treated habitats posttreatment. 

The BLM and Forest 

Service would work 

collaboratively with 

partners at the state and 

local level to maintain and 

enhance sage-grouse 

habitats.

Seasonal restriction would 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-106 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

be applied, as needed, for 

implementing fuels 

management treatments 

according to the type of 

seasonal habitat present.

97 Pinedale RMP:

Treated areas will 

generally be rested from 

livestock grazing for a 

minimum of two full 

growing seasons after 

treatment unless the 

appropriate level of 

environmental analysis 

determines that shorter 

durations are adequate. 

Analysis could indicate a 

need for a longer rest 

period. 

Green River RMP:

All treated areas will be 

rested a minimum of 2 

growing seasons from 

livestock grazing. Burn 

areas will be fenced from 

livestock and big game 

animals if necessary. 

Prescribed fire will be 

restricted in areas with 

surface coal or other fossil 

fuel outcrops.

JMH CAP:

Areas proposed for 

treatment with prescribed 

burns will be rested 1 full 

year prior to treatment 

(unless vegetation cover 

prior to burning has 

adequate fine fuels to carry 

the fire) and 24 months 

Treated areas would be 

rested from grazing for 

two full growing seasons 

unless vegetation 

recovery dictates 

otherwise with no 

exceptions. 

No similar action Treated areas would not 

be rested from grazing.

Grazing would be deferred 

on treated areas for two 

full growing seasons 

unless vegetation 

objectives or vegetation 

recovery indicates a 

shorter or longer rest 

period is necessary based 

on vegetation 

monitoring results.
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-107

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

after treatment, unless an 

onsite analysis determines 

that this time frame should 

be expanded or reduced. 

Treatments in aspen 

communities may be 

fenced on a case-by-case 

basis.

98 No similar action No similar action Within sage-grouse 

priority and general 

habitat, sagebrush 

reduction/treatments to 

increase livestock or big 

game forage would be 

avoided and would include 

plans to restore highquality habitat in areas 

with invasive species.

No similar action For vegetation treatments 

in sagebrush within core 

habitat areas, refer to 

Attachment 6 – WGFD 

Protocols for Treating 

Sagebrush to Benefit 

Sage-Grouse (WGFD 

2011, as updated). 

Vegetation Reclamation

99 Reclamation of surface 

disturbances in sagegrouse habitats would be in 

accordance with the 

Wyoming Reclamation 

Policy (BLM 2009a). 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Reclamation of surface 

disturbances in sagegrouse core habitats 

would be consistent with 

the Wyoming Reclamation 

Policy (BLM 2009a) and 

Appendix C or Forest 

Service Reclamation 

policy.

A monitoring plan would 

be developed for each 

restoration or reclamation 

project and reporting 

progress and changes in 

resource condition.

100 No similar action Within sage-grouse 

priority habitat: Areas for 

vegetation restoration 

and/or criteria that include 

State sage-grouse 

Within sage-grouse 

priority and general 

habitat, exotic seedings 

would be rehabbed, 

interseeded, and restored 

No similar action Areas for vegetation 

restoration and/or 

restoration criteria that 

include state sage-grouse 

conservation plans and 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-108 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

conservation plans and 

appropriate local 

information would be 

identified; use of native 

seeds for restoration 

would be required unless 

probability for success is 

low (non-native seeds 

could be used as long as 

they meet sage-grouse 

habitat objectives); 

restoration management 

would be designed to 

obtain long-term 

persistence. 

Reestablishment of 

sagebrush cover and 

desirable understory 

plants would be the 

highest priority for 

restoration efforts.

Native plants and 

landscape patterns that 

most benefit sage-grouse 

would be restored and 

created, considering 

potential changes in 

climate.

to recover sagebrush in 

areas to expand sagegrouse priority and 

general habitats.

appropriate local 

information would be 

identified. The use of 

native plants and seeds 

for restoration would be 

required unless the 

probability for success is 

low (non-native plants and 

seeds may be used as 

long as they meet sagegrouse habitat objectives), 

and restoration 

management would be 

designed to obtain longterm persistence based on 

ESD. 

Reestablishment of 

sagebrush cover and 

desirable understory 

plants would be the 

highest priority for 

restoration efforts.

Landscape patterns that 

most benefit sage-grouse 

would be restored and 

created, considering 

potential changes in 

climate.

101 No similar action Within sage-grouse 

priority habitat, 

implementation of 

restoration projects would 

be prioritized based on 

environmental variables 

that improve chances for 

project success in areas 

most likely to benefit sagegrouse.

Restoration would be 

prioritized in seasonal 

Within sage-grouse 

priority and general 

habitat, implementation of 

restoration projects would 

be prioritized based on 

environmental variables 

that improve chances for 

project success in areas 

most likely to benefit sagegrouse.

Restoration would be 

prioritized in seasonal 

No similar action Within sage-grouse core 

habitat, implementation of 

restoration projects would 

be prioritized based on 

environmental variables 

that improve chances for 

project success in areas 

most likely to benefit sagegrouse.

Restoration would be 

prioritized in seasonal 

habitats that are thought 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-109

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

habitats that are thought 

to be limiting sage-grouse 

distribution and/or 

abundance.

habitats that are thought 

to be limiting sage-grouse 

distribution and/or 

abundance and where 

factors causing 

degradation have already 

been addressed (e.g., 

changes in livestock 

management).

to be limiting sage-grouse 

distribution and/or 

abundance.

102 Kemmerer RMP:

Require the use of certified 

weed-free seed and mulch 

for rehabilitation projects.

Pinedale RMP:

Disturbed areas will be 

reclaimed to native site 

plant composition. If 

reclamation of original 

plant composition is 

impossible or not desirable, 

reclamation will achieve a 

native plant community that 

meets the Wyoming 

Standards for Rangeland 

Health.

TBNG LRMP:

Allow only certified noxious 

weed seed-free products 

for animal feed or revegetation projects. This 

includes use of certified 

hay or straw, and heattreated, or other 

appropriately processed 

products. Where 

technically and 

economically feasible, use 

genetically local (at the 

ecological sub-section 

level) native plant species 

Native seed allocation 

would be prioritized for 

use in sage-grouse habitat 

in years when preferred 

native seed is in short 

supply. This may require 

reallocation of native seed 

from Emergency 

Stabilization and 

Rehabilitation (ES&R) 

(BLM) and/or Burn Area 

Emergency Rehabilitation 

(BAER) (Forest Service) 

projects outside of priority 

sage-grouse habitat to 

those inside it. 

Within sage-grouse 

priority habitat, the use of 

native plant seeds for 

ES&R or BAER seedings 

would be required based 

on availability, adaptation 

(site potential), and 

probability of success.

Same as Alternative B In addition to 

Alternative A:

Within sage-grouse core 

habitat, use of native and 

non-native plant seeds for 

vegetation seedings would 

be allowed based on 

probability of success and 

benefits to sage-grouse 

habitats.

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

Where probability of 

success or native seed 

availability is low or where 

there is a specific 

identified purpose that 

cannot be met with 

natives, non-native seeds 

could be used provided 

they meet sage-grouse 

habitat conservation 

objectives.

The use of native seeds 

for fuels management 

treatment would be 

prioritized based on 

availability, adaptation 

(site potential), and 

probability of success.

Where probability of 

success or native seed 

availability is low, nonnative seeds may be used 

to meet Greater SageGrouse habitat objectives 

to trend toward restoring 

the fire regime. When 

reseeding, use fire 

resistant native and nonnative species, as 

appropriate, to provide for 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-110 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

in re-vegetation efforts. To 

prevent soil erosion, nonnative annuals or sterile 

perennial species may be 

used while native 

perennials are becoming 

established.

MBNF LRMP:

Use native species and 

desirable non-native 

species in seed mixtures; if 

non-natives are used to 

assure ground cover, 

select plants based on the 

likelihood that they will not 

persist beyond the 

rehabilitation period. Use 

genetically local 

(subsection level) plant 

species where technically 

and economically feasible.

fuel breaks.

Native seed allocation 

would be prioritized for 

use in sage-grouse 

habitat.

103 No similar action Post ES&R and BAER 

management would be 

designed to ensure longterm persistence of 

seeded or pre-burn native 

plants. This may require 

temporary or long-term 

changes in livestock 

grazing, wild horse and 

burro, and travel 

management, etc., to 

achieve and maintain the 

desired condition of ES&R 

and BAER projects to 

benefit sage-grouse 

(Eiswerth and Shonkwiler 

2006).

No similar action No similar action Same as Alternative B

104 No similar action The role of existing 

seedings that are currently 

Within sage-grouse 

priority and general 

No similar action The role of existing 

seedings that are currently 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-111

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

composed of primarily 

introduced perennial 

grasses in and adjacent to 

priority sage-grouse 

habitats would be 

evaluated to determine if 

they should be restored to 

sagebrush or habitat of 

higher quality for sagegrouse. If these seedings 

are part of an AMP/ 

Conservation Plan or if 

they provide value in 

conserving or enhancing 

the rest of the priority 

habitats, no restoration 

would be necessary. 

The compatibility of these 

seedings would be 

assessed for sage-grouse 

habitat or as a component 

of a grazing system during 

the land health 

assessments (or other 

analyses [Forest Service

only]) (Davies et al. 2011).

habitat, the role of existing 

seedings that are currently 

composed of primarily 

introduced perennial 

grasses in and adjacent to 

sage-grouse habitat would 

be evaluated to determine 

if they should be restored 

to sagebrush or habitat of 

higher quality for sagegrouse. If these seedings 

provide value in 

conserving or enhancing 

sage-grouse habitat, no 

restoration would be 

necessary. 

The compatibility of these 

seedings for sage-grouse 

habitat would be assessed 

during the land health 

assessments.

composed of primarily 

introduced perennial 

grasses in and adjacent to 

core sage-grouse habitats 

would be evaluated to 

determine if they should 

be restored to sagebrush 

or habitat of higher quality 

for sage-grouse. If these 

seedings are part of an 

AMP/ Conservation Plan 

or if they provide value in 

conserving or enhancing 

the rest of the core 

habitats, no restoration 

would be necessary.

The compatibility of these 

seedings for sage-grouse 

habitat or as a component 

of a grazing system would 

be assessed during the 

land health assessments 

(or other analyses [Forest 

Service only]) (Davies et 

al. 2011).

105 No similar action Priority would be given for 

implementing specific 

sage-grouse habitat 

restoration projects in 

annual grasslands first to 

sites that are adjacent to 

or surrounded by sagegrouse priority habitats. 

Annual grasslands would 

be second priority for 

restoration when the sites 

are not adjacent to priority 

habitat, but are within 2 

miles of priority habitat. 

The third priority for 

No similar action Within sage-grouse core 

and general habitat, sagegrouse habitat restoration 

projects in annual 

grassland restoration 

would be prioritized 

commensurate with its 

threat to the region.

Priority would be given for 

implementing specific 

sage-grouse habitat 

restoration projects in 

areas invaded by annual 

grasses first to sites that 

are adjacent to or 

surrounded by sagegrouse core habitats. 

Areas invaded by annual 

grasses would be second 

priority for restoration 

when the sites are not 

adjacent to core habitat, 

but are within 2 miles of 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-112 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

annual grasslands habitat 

restoration projects would 

be sites beyond 2 miles of 

priority habitat. The intent 

would be to focus 

restoration outward from 

existing, intact habitat.

core habitat. The third 

priority for areas invaded 

by annual grasses habitat 

restoration projects would 

be sites beyond 2 miles of 

core habitat. The intent 

would be to focus 

restoration outward from 

existing, intact habitat.

106 No similar action In fire prone areas where 

sagebrush seed is 

required for sage-grouse 

habitat restoration, the 

BLM/Forest Service would 

consider establishing seed 

harvest areas that are 

managed for seed 

production and are a 

priority for protection from 

outside disturbances.

Same as Alternative B. No similar action Same as Alternative B

107 No similar action No similar action Any vegetation treatment 

plan would include 

pretreatment data on 

wildlife and habitat 

condition, establish nongrazing exclosures, and 

include long-term 

monitoring where treated 

areas are monitored for at 

least three years before 

grazing returns. 

Monitoring would be 

continued for five years 

after livestock are returned 

to the area, and compared 

to treated, ungrazed 

exclosures, as well as 

untreated areas.

No similar action Vegetation treatment 

proposals must include 

evaluation of soils, 

precipitation, 

invasive/exotic plants, as 

well as the current 

condition of sage-grouse 

core habitats.
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-113

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Grasshopper/Mormon Cricket Control and Management

108 Casper RMP:

Work with Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) to control 

outbreaks of grasshoppers 

and Mormon crickets on 

public lands in the planning 

area in accordance with 

the MOU between U.S. 

Department of the Interior

and APHIS.

Grasshopper or cricket 

control would not occur in 

sage-grouse priority 

habitat areas unless it can 

be demonstrated that it is 

beneficial to sage-grouse. 

No similar action Grasshopper or cricket 

control would occur to 

enhance economic 

benefits to other resource 

objectives.

The BLM/Forest Service

could implement 

treatments within sagegrouse core habitat areas 

where outbreaks of 

grasshopper or Mormon 

cricket populations are 

expected to rise above 

economic levels. 

Treatments must be 

conducted only following 

reduced agent-area 

treatments (RAATS) 

protocols. The BLM/Forest 

Service would work 

collaboratively with 

partners at the federal, 

state, and local levels, 

including the Wyoming 

Weed and Pest Districts 

within the counties where 

the treatment is to occur, 

to maintain and enhance 

sage-grouse habitats in a 

manner consistent with 

the core population area 

strategy for conservation. 

The BLM/Forest Service

would be directed to utilize 

the Wyoming 

Grasshopper and Mormon 

Cricket Control website as 

a resource for updated 

information when 

conducting analysis of 

grasshopper and Mormon 

cricket control in sagegrouse habitats.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-114 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Wild Horse Management

109 Green River RMP/JMH 

CAP:

Specific habitat objectives 

for herd management 

areas would be developed. 

Consideration will be given 

to desired plant 

communities, wildlife, 

watershed, livestock 

grazing, and other 

resource needs.

Within sage-grouse 

priority habitat, BLM Herd 

Management Area Plans 

(HMAPs) and Forest 

Service Wild Horse 

Territory Plans (WHTPs) 

would be developed or 

amended to incorporate 

sage-grouse habitat 

objectives and 

management 

considerations for all BLM 

herd management areas 

(HMAs) and Forest 

Service Wild Horse 

Territories (WHTs).

Same as Alternative B Wild horse and burro 

populations would be 

managed at an 

appropriate management 

level, utilizing sage-grouse 

core habitat condition as 

one key parameter for 

setting these levels, where 

BLM HMAs and core 

habitat overlap. 

Within sage-grouse core 

habitat, the BLM would 

review and consider 

amending BLM Herd 

Management Area Plans 

(HMAPs) to incorporate 

sage-grouse habitat 

objectives and 

management 

considerations for all BLM 

herd management areas 

(HMAs). 

110 No similar action For all BLM HMAs and 

Forest Service WHTs 

within priority sage-grouse 

habitat, the evaluation of 

all AMLs would be 

prioritized based on 

indicators that address 

structure/condition/compo

sition of vegetation and 

measurements specific to 

achieving sage-grouse 

habitat objectives.

No similar action The evaluation of all AMLs 

in sage-grouse core 

habitat would be 

prioritized based on sagegrouse habitat objectives.

Sage-grouse core habitat 

management objectives 

would be considered when 

evaluating AMLs. 

111 No similar action Within sage-grouse 

priority habitat, land health 

assessments would be 

prioritized and conducted 

to determine existing 

structure/condition/ 

composition of vegetation 

within all BLM HMAs and 

Forest Service WHTs. 

Same as Alternative B Land health assessments

would be prioritized and 

conducted in BLM HMAs 

within sage-grouse core 

habitat areas. 

Sage-grouse core habitat 

management objectives 

would be considered when 

conducting land health 

assessments in BLM 

HMAs.

112 Green River RMP: When conducting NEPA Same as Alternative B No similar action When conducting NEPA 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-115

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Water developments will 

be provided if necessary, 

to improve herd distribution 

and manage forage 

utilization.

JMH CAP:

Water developments will 

be provided if necessary, 

to improve herd distribution 

and manage forage 

utilization.

Water developments within 

sensitive wildlife habitats

will be considered only if 

wildlife habitat and 

resource conditions will be 

improved or maintained.

analysis for wild horse and 

burro management 

activities, water 

developments or other 

rangeland improvements 

for wild horses in sagegrouse priority habitat, the 

direct and indirect effects 

to sage-grouse 

populations and habitat 

would be addressed. 

Water developments or 

rangeland improvements 

would be implemented 

using the criteria identified 

for domestic livestock 

identified above in priority 

habitats.

analysis for wild horse and 

burro management 

activities, water 

developments or other 

rangeland improvements 

for wild horses in sagegrouse core habitat, the 

direct and indirect effects 

to sage-grouse 

populations and habitat 

would be addressed. 

Water developments or 

rangeland improvements 

would be implemented 

using the criteria identified 

for domestic livestock 

identified above in core 

habitats.

113 No similar action The BLM/Forest Service

would coordinate with 

other resources (Range, 

Wildlife, and Riparian) to 

conduct land health 

assessments to determine 

existing 

structure/condition/compo

sition of vegetation within 

all BLM HMAs and Forest 

Service WHTs.

Same as Alternative B No similar action Coordinate with other 

resources (Range, 

Wildlife, and Riparian) to 

conduct land health 

assessments within all 

BLM HMAs. 

Wildland Fire and Fuels Management

114 Casper RMP:

Utilize an integrated 

management technique 

approach (defined as 

prescribed fire, 

mechanical, chemical, or 

biological, followed by 

desired reseeding) to 

reduce fuels to protect high 

priority areas or resource 

In priority habitat, fuels 

treatments would be 

designed and 

implemented with an 

emphasis on protecting 

existing sagebrush 

ecosystems.

Within sage-grouse 

priority and general 

habitat, fuels treatments 

would be designed and 

implemented with an 

emphasis on protecting 

existing sagebrush 

ecosystems.

No similar action In sage-grouse core 

habitat, fuels treatments 

would be designed and 

implemented with an 

emphasis on protecting 

existing sagebrush 

ecosystems and 

enhancing and protecting 

future sagebrush 

ecosystems (refer to 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-116 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

values defined as, but not 

limited to the following:

1. Urban and industrial 

interface areas

2. Developed recreation 

areas

3. Commercial timber 

areas

4. Wildlife habitats

5. Range-improvement 

facilities

6. Communication sites

7. Municipal watersheds.

WGFD Protocols for 

Treating Sagebrush to 

Benefit Sage-grouse 

[WGFD 2011, as 

updated]) and Appendix A.

These recommended 

protocols would be used in 

determining whether 

proposed treatment 

constitutes a “disturbance” 

that will contribute toward 

the 5% threshold for 

habitat maintenance.

Fuel treatments would be 

designed through an 

interdisciplinary process to 

expand, enhance, 

maintain, and protect 

Greater Sage-Grouse

habitat. Green strips

(using native fire 

resistant/resilient species)

and/or fuel breaks would 

be used, where 

appropriate, to protect 

seeding efforts from 

subsequent fire events.

In coordination with the 

USFWS and relevant state 

agencies, BLM/Forest 

Service planning units 

(Districts/Forests) with 

large blocks of Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat 

would develop, by 

December 2014, using the 

assessment process 

described in Appendix A, 

a fuels management 

strategy which considers 

an up-to-date fuels profile, 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-117

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

land use plan direction, 

current and potential 

habitat fragmentation, 

sagebrush and sagegrouse ecological factors, 

and active vegetation 

management steps to 

provide critical breaks in 

fuel continuity, where 

appropriate. When 

developing this strategy, 

planning units would

consider the risk of 

increased habitat 

fragmentation from a 

proposed action versus 

the risk of large scale 

fragmentation posed by 

wildfires if the action is not 

taken.

Utilizing an 

interdisciplinary approach, 

a full range of fuel 

reduction techniques 

would be available. Fuel 

reduction techniques such 

as grazing, prescribed fire, 

chemical, biological, and 

mechanical treatments 

would be acceptable.

Upon project completion, 

fuels projects would be 

monitored and managed

to ensure long-term 

success, including 

persistence of seeded 

species and/or other 

treatment components.

Invasive vegetation posttreatment would be 

controlled.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-118 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Wildfire prevention plans 

would be developed that 

explain the resource value 

of sage-grouse habitat 

and include fire prevention 

messages and actions to 

reduce human-caused 

ignitions.

115 Kemmerer RMP:

Implement BLM 

Emergency Stabilization 

and Rehabilitation 

standards located in the 

DOI Interagency Burned 

Area Emergency 

Response Guidebook and 

BLM Burned Area 

Emergency Stabilization 

and Rehabilitation 

Handbook on wildland fires 

to protect and sustain 

healthy ecosystems and 

protect life and property.

Newcastle RMP:

All wildfires will be 

evaluated to determine the 

need for rehabilitation or 

restoration measures.

Restoration of burned 

areas will be by natural 

succession unless a 

special need is identified to 

prevent further resource 

damage.

Rawlins RMP:

Rehabilitation and 

restoration efforts specific 

to a fire event will be 

undertaken to protect and 

sustain ecosystems, public 

Burned areas that are 

within priority sage-grouse

habitats would be restored 

and recovered.

The BLM/Forest Service

would bring in BAER and 

Burned Area 

Rehabilitation (BAR)

teams who would work 

collaboratively with 

partners at the federal, 

state, and local level to 

maintain and enhance 

sage-grouse habitats in a 

manner consistent with 

the priority habitat 

population area strategy 

for conservation. DDCT 

reviews would be 

conducted in coordination 

with the WGFD Habitat 

Protection Program 

located in Cheyenne, 

Wyoming, at the WGFD 

headquarters. Areas 

within sage-grouse priority 

habitat would be high 

priority for restoration of 

sage-grouse habitat 

beyond immediate 

response.

No similar action Same as Alternative A In addition to 

Alternative A: 

Burned areas that are 

within core sage-grouse

habitats would be 

restored.

Areas containing less than 

5% canopy cover would 

be treated as disturbed 

pending an 

implementation 

management plan with 

trend data showing the 

area returning to 

functional sage-grouse 

habitat. This would be 

specific only to wildfire 

situations. This direction 

would not be intended for 

other incentive/mitigation 

situations.

The BLM/Forest Service

could bring in BAR and 

BAER teams who would 

work collaboratively with 

partners at the federal, 

state, and local level to 

maintain and enhance 

sage-grouse habitats in a 

manner consistent with 

the core habitat population 

area strategy for 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-119

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

health and safety, and to 

help communities protect 

infrastructure.

conservation. DDCT 

reviews would be 

conducted in coordination 

with the WGFD Habitat 

Protection Program 

located in Cheyenne, 

Wyoming at the WGFD 

headquarters. Areas 

within sage-grouse core

habitat would be high 

priority for restoration of 

sage-grouse habitat 

beyond immediate 

response.

116 Casper RMP:

Use prescribed burning to 

achieve measurable 5thorder watershed objectives 

from (1) other resources, 

including, but not limited to, 

forestry, wildlife, range, 

vegetation, and watershed; 

(2) the reduction of 

hazardous fuels; and (3) 

the introduction of fire into 

fire-adapted ecosystems.

Green River RMP/JMH 

CAP:

Prescribed fire will 

generally be the preferred 

method of vegetation 

manipulation to convert 

decadent stands of 

brushland to grasslands 

and to stimulate sprouting 

of old, decadent aspen 

stands and/or shrub 

species. Prescribed burns 

are preferred in areas 

having greater than 35%

Within sage-grouse 

priority habitat, fire would 

not be used to treat 

sagebrush in less than 12-

inch precipitation zones 

(e.g., Wyoming big 

sagebrush or other xeric 

sagebrush species). 

However, if as a last resort 

and after all other 

treatment opportunities 

have been explored and 

site specific variables 

allow, the use of 

prescribed fire that would 

disrupt fuel continuity or 

enhance land health could 

be considered where 

cheatgrass is a very minor 

component in the 

understory.

Within sage-grouse 

priority and general 

habitat, fire would not be 

used to treat sagebrush in 

less than 12-inch 

precipitation zones (e.g., 

Wyoming big sagebrush 

or other xeric sagebrush 

species). However, if as a 

last resort and after all 

other treatment 

opportunities have been 

explored and site specific 

variables allow, the use of 

prescribed fire for fuel 

breaks that would disrupt 

the fuel continuity across 

the landscape could be 

considered in stands 

where cheatgrass is a 

very minor component in 

the understory.

Same as Alternative A In addition to 

Alternative A: 

For fuels management, 

the agencies would 

consider multiple tools for 

fuels reduction and would 

analyze in NEPA 

compliance 

documentation before 

electing to implement 

prescribed fire in sagegrouse core habitat areas. 

The use of prescribed fire 

would be avoided in areas 

of Wyoming big 

sagebrush, other xeric 

sagebrush species, where 

cheatgrass or other fireinvasive species occur, 

and/or within areas of less 

than 12-inch precipitation 

zones.

Refer to Appendix A, 

WGFD Protocols for 

Treating Sagebrush to 

Benefit Sage-grouse 

(WGFD 2011, as updated) 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-120 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

sagebrush composition, 

20% desirable grass 

composition, and greater 

than 10 inches of 

precipitation. 

Rawlins RMP:

Fuel treatments, including 

prescribed fire, 

mechanical, chemical, and 

biological treatments will 

be used for fuels reduction 

and to meet other multipleuse resource objectives, 

including returning fire to 

its natural role in the 

ecosystem. Wildland-urban 

interfaces (WUI) and 

communities at risk will 

receive priority for fuels 

reduction.

and BLM Washington 

Office Instruction 

Memorandum 2013-128 

and Forest Service 2013 

Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Methods

(Sage-grouse 

Conservation Related to 

Wildland Fire and Fuels 

Management). If 

prescribed fire activities 

are not in compliance with 

these protocols, the 

treatment would be 

considered a sage-grouse 

core habitat disturbance.

117 No similar action Within sage-grouse 

priority habitat, post fuels 

management projects 

would be designed to 

ensure long-term 

persistence of seeded or 

pre-treatment native 

plants. This could require 

temporary or long-term 

changes in livestock 

grazing management, wild 

horse and burro 

management, travel 

management, or other 

activities to achieve and 

maintain the desired 

condition of the fuels 

management project.

Within sage-grouse 

priority and general 

habitat, post fuels 

management projects

would be designed to 

ensure long-term 

persistence of seeded or 

pre-treatment native 

plants, including 

sagebrush. This could

require temporary or longterm changes in livestock 

grazing management, wild 

horse and burro 

management, travel 

management, or other 

activities to achieve and 

maintain the desired 

condition of the fuels 

management project.

No similar action Within sage-grouse core 

habitat, post fuels 

management projects 

would be designed to 

ensure long-term 

persistence of seeded or 

pre-treatment native 

plants (while controlling for 

erosion and treating 

infestation of invasive 

plant species), to return to 

suitable sage-grouse

habitat.
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-121 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

118 Casper RMP:

Treat woodland 

encroachment in 

grassland, sagebrush, 

aspen, and other 

vegetative communities 

where it is determined to 

be detrimental to other 

resource values or uses.

Manage 630,180 acres of 

sagebrush communities 

toward Desired Plant 

Community (DPC).

No similar action Within sage-grouse 

priority and general

habitat, lands will be 

managed to be in the 

good or better ecological 

condition to help minimize 

adverse impacts of fire.

No similar action Same as Alternative A

119 Pinedale RMP:

In the WUI or industrial 

interface, fuels reduction 

methods best suited to the 

area will be used to reduce 

the risk of catastrophic fire 

to these areas. 

Casper RMP:

Use prescribed burning to 

achieve measurable 5thorder watershed objectives 

from (1) other resources, 

including, but not limited to, 

forestry, wildlife, range, 

vegetation, and watershed; 

(2) the reduction of 

hazardous fuels; and (3) 

the introduction of fire into 

fire-adapted ecosystems. 

Utilize an integrated 

management technique 

approach (defined as 

prescribed fire, 

mechanical, chemical, or 

biological, followed by 

desired reseeding) to 

Same as Alternative A Within sage-grouse 

priority and general 

habitat, any fuels 

treatments would focus on 

interfaces with human 

habitation or significant 

existing disturbances.

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-122 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

reduce fuels to protect high 

priority areas or resource 

values defined as, but not 

limited to the following:

1. Urban and industrial 

interface areas

2. Developed recreation 

areas

3. Commercial timber 

areas

4. Wildlife habitats

5. Range-improvement 

facilities

6. Communication sites

7. Municipal watersheds. 

Decision 3008 Fuels 

Management

Rawlins RMP:

A high priority for fire 

management activities will 

be given to areas identified 

as communities at risk, 

industrial interface areas, 

and areas containing 

resource values 

considered high priority 

within the RMP planning 

area. 

JMH CAP:

Appropriate management 

response to protect the 

basin big sagebrush/lemon 

scurfpea plant communities 

will be applied. 

Wildland and prescribed 

fires will be managed in all 

vegetation types to 

maintain or improve 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-123

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

biological diversity and the 

overall health of the public 

lands. In particular, plant 

species and age class 

diversity will be a priority; 

thus, appropriate 

management response 

(AMR) for all wildland fires 

will be identified and 

implemented depending on 

the resources and 

management objectives for 

the area.

Suppression techniques 

and hazardous fuels 

reduction activities will be 

identified to reduce 

wildland fire severity and 

occurrence on portions of 

the landscape where fire 

could cause undesirable 

changes in plant 

community composition 

and structure. A sitespecific analysis will be 

prepared for sensitive 

resource areas, such as 

special status plant species 

sites, heritage sites, 

historic trails, and ACECs, 

to determine the type of fire 

suppression activity that 

will be acceptable. Fire 

equipment and fire 

suppression techniques, 

such as vegetation 

clearing, will be limited to 

existing roads and trails in 

special status plant species 

habitat. As appropriate, the 

Fire Management Plan will 

be updated to reflect the 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-124 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

appropriate suppression 

activity in sensitive 

resource areas.

120 No similar action No similar action Within sage-grouse 

priority and general 

habitat, post fire recovery 

would include establishing 

adequately sized 

exclosures (free of 

livestock grazing) that 

could be used to assess 

recovery.

No similar action No similar action

121 No similar action No similar action Within sage-grouse 

priority and general 

habitat, livestock grazing 

should be excluded from 

burned areas until woody 

and herbaceous plants 

achieve sage-grouse 

habitat objectives.

No similar action No similar action

122 No similar action No similar action Within sage-grouse 

priority and general habitat 

where burned sagegrouse habitat cannot be 

fenced from other 

unburned habitat, the 

entire area (e.g., 

allotment/pasture) should 

be closed to grazing until 

recovered.

No similar action No similar action

123 No similar action No similar action Within sage-grouse 

priority and general 

habitat, mowing of grass 

would be used in any 

fuelbreak fuels reduction 

project (roadsides or other 

areas).

No similar action No similar action

124 Casper RMP: In priority sage-grouse 

habitat areas, suppression 

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A In addition to 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-125

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative

B AlternativeC AlternativeD

AlternativeE

(Preferred Alternative)

Appropriate management 

response will be used on 

all wildfires in the planning 

area.

Full protection strategies 

and tactics will be used in 

the following areas:

1. WUI

2. Wildland industrial 

interface

3. Developed recreation 

sites

4. Developed electronics 

sites of all types.

In all other areas AMR 

strategies and tactics will 

be determined by (but not 

limited to) the following:

1. Firefighter and public 

safety

2. Resource values at risk

3. Proximity to private land

4. Firefighting resource 

availability.

Tactical constraints follow:

The use of retardant within 

300 feet of surface water 

(standing or running) is 

prohibited.

No trees are to be cut 

during suppression 

activities within 200 yards 

of an identified bald eagle 

roost.

No heavy equipment will 

be used within the 

following areas, except 

when human safety is at 

would be prioritized 

immediately after 

firefighter and public 

safety to conserve the 

habitat.

In general sage-grouse 

habitat, a high priority for 

suppression would be 

assigned where wildfires 

threaten priority sage-

grouse habitat.

Alternative A:

In Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat (priority and 

general habitat), 

suppression would be a 

high priority and 

commensurate with values 

at risk.

General sage-grouse 

habitat would be assigned 

a priority commensurate 

with its importance in the 

local fire plan.

Fire fighter and public 

safety would be the 

highest priority. Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat 

would be prioritized 

commensurate with 

property values and other 

critical habitat to be 

protected, with the goal to 

restore, enhance, and 

maintain areas suitable for 

Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Within sage-grouse 

habitat, core habitat (and 

PACs, if so determined by 

individual LUP efforts) 

would be the highest 

priority for conservation 

and protection during fire 

operations and fuels 

management decision 

making. The sage-grouse 

core habitat (and PACs, if 

so determined by 

individual LUP efforts) 

would be viewed as more 

valuable than general 

habitat when priorities are 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-126 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

risk:

1. Areas of cultural 

resource sensitivity

2. Riparian/wetland 

habitats

3. Big game crucial winter 

range habitats

4. Greater Sage-Grouse

leks

5. Areas of highly erosive 

soils.

In areas not identified as 

full protection, heavy 

equipment usage will be 

limited to existing roads 

and trails or immediately 

adjacent to them. 

Kemmerer RMP:

In areas of high-density 

urban and (or) industrial 

interface with intermingled 

BLM-administered lands, 

suppression objectives will 

follow the AMR in an 

approved fire management 

plan for the planning area 

to provide first for human 

health and safety, while 

minimizing loss of property 

and threats to other 

surface owners. Generally, 

wildland fires are 

suppressed in these areas. 

In areas of low-density 

urban and (or) industrial 

interface where BLMadministered lands occur in 

large contiguous blocks, 

fire suppression objectives 

established. When 

suppression resources are 

widely available, 

maximum efforts would be 

placed on limiting fire 

growth in general sagegrouse habitat polygons 

as well. These priority 

areas will be further 

refined following 

completion of the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Landscape 

Wildfire and Invasive 

Species Habitat 

Assessments described in 

Appendix A.
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-127

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

will follow the AMR in an 

approved fire management 

plan for the planning area 

to provide first for human 

health and safety, while 

allowing for achievement of 

resource objectives.

Newcastle RMP:

Full suppression will be 

used on fires endangering 

human life or that spread to 

within 0.25 mile of state or 

private lands, structures 

and facilities, oil and gas 

fields, important riparian 

habitat, or other sensitive 

resources.

All wildfires will be 

evaluated to determine the 

need for rehabilitation or 

restoration measures. 

Restoration of burned 

areas will be by natural 

succession unless a 

special need is identified to 

prevent further resource 

damage.

Pinedale RMP:

Wildland fire mitigation and 

fuels activities will be 

managed to provide for 

firefighter and public safety 

as a first priority. Public 

lands within intermixed 

landownership areas will

be managed in association 

with the adjoining and 

nearby private and state 

lands. 

Areas of mixed 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-128 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

landownership, 

communities at risk as 

identified in the Federal 

Register, Volume 66, 

Number 160, 2001 

(Antelope Run, Beaver 

Creek area, Boulder, 

Cottonwood Creek, Daniel, 

Forty Rod, Hoback 

Ranches, New Fork, 

Pinedale, Pocket Creek, 

and Upper Green); urban 

and industrial interface 

areas; and areas 

containing high-priority 

resource values have high 

priority for response to 

wildland fires and/or for 

fuels reduction and 

mitigation. Wildland fire 

suppression activities will 

be based on the AMR.

Rawlins RMP:

A high priority for fire 

management activities will 

be given to areas identified 

as communities at risk, 

industrial interface areas, 

and areas containing 

resource values 

considered high priority 

within the RMP planning 

area. 

Green River RMP:

Wildfire suppression will 

emphasize AMR. 

Immediate control actions 

will be used only in cases 

of arson, direct threat to 

public safety, or a strong 

potential threaten structural 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-129

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

property. 

Fire suppression actions 

will be based on achieving 

the most efficient control 

and allowing historical 

acres burned to increase. 

Activity plans will be 

developed for designated 

fire management areas 

defining specific 

parameters for all fire 

occurrences.

JMH CAP:

Appropriate management 

response to protect the 

basin big sagebrush/lemon 

scurfpea plant communities 

will be applied. 

Wildland and prescribed 

fires will be managed in all 

vegetation types to 

maintain or improve 

biological diversity and the 

overall health of the public 

lands. In particular, plant 

species and age class 

diversity will be a priority; 

thus, AMR for all wildland 

fires will be identified and 

implemented depending on 

the resources and 

management objectives for 

the area.

Suppression techniques 

and hazardous fuels 

reduction activities will be 

identified to reduce 

wildland fire severity and 

occurrence on portions of 

the landscape where fire 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-130 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

could cause undesirable 

changes in plant 

community composition 

and structure. A sitespecific analysis will be 

prepared for sensitive 

resource areas, such as 

special status plant species 

sites, heritage sites, 

historic trails, and ACECs, 

to determine the type of fire 

suppression activity that 

will be acceptable. Fire 

equipment and fire 

suppression techniques, 

such as vegetation 

clearing, will be limited to 

existing roads and trails in 

special status plant species 

habitat. As appropriate, the 

Fire Management Plan will 

be updated to reflect the 

appropriate suppression 

activity in sensitive 

resource areas.

TBNG LRMP:

Minimize impacts to 

paleontological and 

heritage resources, 

streams, stream banks, 

shorelines, lakes and 

associated vegetation, and 

habitat for threatened, 

endangered, proposed, 

and sensitive species from 

wildfire suppression efforts 

in the following ways:

Prohibit the use of earthmoving equipment on 

known paleontological or 

heritage sites. 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-131

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Discourage the application 

of fire-retardant chemicals 

over riparian areas, 

wetlands, and open water.

Prior to using earth-moving 

equipment, consult 

appropriate specialists for 

guidance.

Notify USFWS when TES 

habitat is threatened or 

impacted by fire.

BTNF LRMP:

Wildland fire suppression 

standards LRMP fire 

amendment, page 9 

Wildland fire suppression 

standards:

A full range of suppression 

tactics is authorized 

Forest-wide, consistent 

with Forest-wide and 

individual DFC 

management emphasis 

and direction.

Wildland fire use standard, 

page 10, LRMP fire 

amendment:

Wildland fire use is 

authorized Forest-wide, 

consistent with Forest-wide 

and DFC emphasis and 

direction.

The Fire Management Plan 

will designate areas of high 

resource values that will be 

protected during fire use.

These sites include:

1. Administrative sites

2. Developed recreation 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-132 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

sites

3. Summer homes

4. Communication sites

5. Oil and gas sites

6. Utility corridors

7. Other sites containing 

capital improvements.

MBNF LRMP:

When determining the 

appropriate fire 

management response, 

consider the following 

factors: a) proximity to 

other ownerships including 

all wildland-urban 

interfaces, b) values at risk 

such as suitable timber, 

structural improvements, 

and special interest areas, 

c) steep topography and 

motorized access to the 

area, d) protection of 

watersheds especially 

those that provide drinking 

water for local 

communities, e) concerns 

related to wildlife habitat 

management, and f) other 

multiple use, ecosystem 

management, or agency 

policy objectives. 

Where fire suppression is 

necessary, use techniques 

that minimize soil and 

vegetation disturbance.

Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management

Monitoring Effectiveness

125 Casper RMP: Sage-grouse monitoring No similar action Same as Alternative B The BLM/Forest Service, 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-133

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Bates Hole and Fish 

Creek/Willow Creek: The 

areas will have priority for 

vegetative treatments to 

improve sage-grouse 

habitats and for vegetation 

monitoring to ensure 

residual herbaceous 

vegetation is maintained 

for nesting cover on public 

lands.

plans would be developed 

and implemented in 

coordination with the 

WGFD and partners, and 

sage-grouse habitats and 

populations would be 

monitored to assess the 

effectiveness of 

conservation measures 

that are applied in 

achieving the conservation 

of sage-grouse habitats. 

The directives contained 

in the LUP

actions/decisions would 

be assessed to determine 

the effectiveness of their 

implementation.

The BLM/Forest Service

would establish monitoring 

protocols that would be 

incorporated into project 

approvals as necessary.

The BLM/Forest Service

would report annually to 

the BLM Wyoming State 

Director regarding sagegrouse monitoring data 

and the directives 

contained in the LUP

actions/decisions.

in coordination with the 

State of Wyoming and its 

agencies, other local 

partners and stakeholders, 

would establish monitoring 

protocols for sage-grouse 

populations and habitat 

that would be incorporated 

into individual project 

approvals, including small 

and in-house projects, as 

appropriate and 

necessary.

Density and Disturbance

126 No similar action Priority sage-grouse 

habitats would be 

managed so that discrete 

anthropogenic 

disturbances cover less 

than 3% of the total sagegrouse habitat, regardless 

No similar action Inside Greater SageGrouse core habitat areas, 

the density and 

disturbance goals would 

include the following: 

1. The density of energy 

production (excluding 

Inside sage-grouse core 

habitat areas, the 

BLM/Forest Service would 

limit the density of 

activities related to oil and 

gas development or 

mining activities to no 

more than an average of 1 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-134 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

of ownership.

Anthropogenic features 

would include but would 

not be limited to paved 

highways, graded gravel 

roads, transmission lines, 

substations, wind turbines, 

oil and gas wells, 

geothermal wells and 

associated facilities, 

pipelines, landfills, homes, 

and mines.

In priority habitats where 

the 3% disturbance 

threshold is already 

exceeded from any 

source, no further

anthropogenic 

disturbances would be 

permitted by the BLM or 

Forest Service until 

enough habitat has been 

restored to maintain the 

area under this threshold 

(subject to valid existing 

rights).

In this instance, an 

additional objective would 

be designated for the 

priority area to prioritize 

and reclaim/restore 

anthropogenic 

disturbances so that 3% or 

less of the total priority 

habitat area is disturbed 

within 10 years.

coal and trona mining) 

and/or transmission 

structures (excluding 

buried pipelines or 

power lines) on the 

landscape would be 

managed. 

2. An average of three 

energy production 

locations and/or 

transmission structures 

per 640 acres within the 

DDCT area would not 

be exceeded; and the 

combined value of 

existing and proposed 

disturbances within 

each DDCT would not 

exceed 9% loss of 

sagebrush habitat.

location per 640 acres,

subject to valid existing 

rights; and would limit all 

surface disturbance (any 

program area) to no more 

than 5% of the core 

landscape using the 

DDCT process described 

in Appendix I.

127 No similar action Inside sage-grouse 

connectivity areas, the 

disturbance goals would 

include the following: 

Same as Alternative B Inside sage-grouse 

connectivity areas, the 

disturbance goals would 

include: 

Inside sage-grouse 

connectivity areas, all 

surface disturbance (any 

program area) would be 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-135

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

1. The existing level of 

density of disturbance 

would be managed on 

the landscape.

2. Three percent habitat 

disturbance (up to 19.2 

acres) per 640 acres 

would not be exceeded 

using the DDCT 

process.

1. The density of energy 

production (excluding 

coal and trona mining) 

and/or transmission 

structures (excluding 

buried pipelines or 

power lines) would be 

managed on the 

landscape. 

2. Nine percent habitat 

disturbance (up to 57.6 

acres) per 640 acres 

would not be exceeded 

using the DDCT 

process.

limited to no more than 

5% per 640 acres using 

the DDCT process 

described in Appendix I. 

Onsite and Offsite Mitigation

128 Pinedale RMP:

Offsite mitigation proposed 

by oil and gas or other 

operators could be 

considered and analyzed in 

future environmental 

documents as possible 

mitigation for proposed 

activities within the 

planning area. Proposed 

offsite mitigation will be 

described and analyzed for 

effectiveness in detail on a 

project-specific basis. 

Planning for offsite 

mitigation will be performed 

in coordination with local 

government agencies. The 

need for offsite mitigation 

will be determined in 

conformance with current 

BLM policy, as updated.

The order of use of 

mitigation methods from 

Within sage-grouse 

priority habitat when 

permitting APDs on 

existing leases that are 

not yet developed, the 

proposed surface 

disturbance would not 

exceed 3% per section for 

that area. 

When necessary, 

additional, effective 

mitigation would be 

conducted in 1) sagegrouse priority habitat 

areas, or less preferably in 

2) general sage-grouse 

habitat (dependent upon 

the area-specific ability to 

increase sage-grouse 

populations).

Additional, effective 

mitigation would be 

conducted first within the 

same population area 

Within sage-grouse 

priority habitat when 

permitting APDs on 

existing leases that are 

not yet developed, the 

proposed surface 

disturbance would exceed 

3% per section for that 

area. 

An exception would be 

considered if additional, 

effective mitigation is 

demonstrated to offset the 

resulting loss of sagegrouse.

When necessary, 

additional, effective 

mitigation would be 

conducted in sage-grouse 

priority and general habitat 

(dependent upon the areaspecific ability to increase 

sage-grouse populations).

Within sage-grouse core 

habitat when necessary, 

offsite mitigation would be 

conducted within the same 

population area where the 

impact occurs; and if that 

is not possible, mitigation 

would be conducted within 

the same Management 

Zone as the impact.

An exception to the 9%

limit would be considered 

if additional mitigation is 

demonstrated to be 

capable of offsetting the 

resultant loss to sagegrouse or their habitats.

In addition to 

Alternative A: 

Within sage-grouse core 

habitat when mitigation is 

required, the agencies in 

coordination with the State 

of Wyoming and its 

agencies and partners, 

would use the following 

mitigation hierarchy:

1. In-kind and onsite (on 

lease) mitigation would 

be first priority

2. In-kind mitigation offsite 

within the projects 

DDCT analysis area 

would be second 

priority 

3. In-kind mitigation offsite 

within the core area 

boundary would be 

third priority

4. In-kind mitigation 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-136 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

most to least preferred is 

as follows:

1. Onsite mitigation directly 

resolving impacts 

created by the action.

2. Offsite mitigation to the 

resources affected by 

the action that cannot be 

resolved onsite.

3. Offsite mitigation to 

similar or related 

resources affected by 

the action that cannot be 

resolved onsite.

The following stipulations 

apply to offsite mitigation 

measures:

1. Offsite mitigation will be 

used as a last choice 

when developing 

mitigation measures.

2. Offsite mitigation 

proposals will describe 

the replacement or 

substitution activities or 

methods that are used 

to address potential 

impacts on specific 

resources or 

environments or both.

3. Offsite mitigation must 

be as close to “in-kind” 

in replacement or 

substitution of 

resources, habitat 

function, or 

environments as 

practicable (e.g., elk 

habitat for elk habitat, 

historical properties for 

where the impact is 

realized; and if not 

possible, mitigation would 

be conducted within the 

same Management Zone 

as the impact, per 2006 

WAFWA Strategy.

Additional, effective 

mitigation would be 

conducted first within the 

same population area 

where the impact is 

realized; and if not 

possible, mitigation would 

be conducted within the 

same Management Zone 

as the impact, per 2006 

WAFWA Strategy.

adjacent to the affected 

core area within 

general sage-grouse 

habitat would be fourth 

priority.

When additional offsite 

mitigation is necessary, it 

would be conducted within 

the same population area 

where the impact occurs; 

and if that is not possible, 

mitigation would be 

conducted within the same 

Management Zone per 

2006 WAFWA Strategy as 

the impact.
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-137

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

historical properties).

4. Offsite mitigation 

practices must last as 

long as the impacts are 

expected to occur.

5. Offsite mitigation 

practices are to be 

developed, conducted or 

performed, and funded 

by the project 

proponent.

6. Offsite mitigation 

activities must be 

conducted subject to 

BLM review and 

approval that the 

mitigation will actually 

address the impacts 

occurring on the public 

lands.

The priority order for 

mitigating resource impacts 

onsite or offsite is as 

follows:

1. Onsite Mitigation –

Onsite (avoid, minimize, 

rectify, or reduce in 

time).

2. Offsite Mitigation – Local 

(unless greater resource 

benefits can be 

achieved through 

regional or interstate 

mitigation).

3. Offsite Mitigation –

Regional (unless greater 

resource benefits can be 

achieved through 

interstate mitigation).
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-138 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

4. Offsite Mitigation –

Interstate: The preferred 

area for conducting 

offsite mitigation is as 

near (local offsite 

mitigation) to the project 

or impacted area as 

possible or as scientific 

information and impact 

analysis suggests.

5. Offsite Mitigation –

Interstate: The preferred 

area for conducting 

offsite mitigation is as 

near (local offsite 

mitigation) to the project 

or impacted area as 

possible or as scientific 

information and impact 

analysis suggests.

Timing and Distance Restrictions

129 Sage-grouse leks inside 

sage-grouse core and 

connectivity habitat 

areas:

Casper RMP:

Avoid surface disturbance 

or occupancy within 0.25

mile of the perimeter of 

occupied sage-grouse leks. 

Surface disturbing activity 

is restricted or prohibited 

within 0.75 miles of 

occupied sage-grouse leks 

in Bates Hole and Fish 

Creek/Willow Creek.

Occupied sage-grouse leks 

in Bates Hole and Fish 

Creek/Willow Creek will 

Sage-grouse leks inside 

sage-grouse priority and 

connectivity habitat 

areas: 

Provide the following 

conservation measures as 

terms and conditions of 

the approved RMP: New 

surface occupancy would 

not be allowed on federal 

leases within priority 

habitats. This would 

include winter 

concentration areas during 

any time of the year.

The following exceptions 

would be considered:

1. If the lease is entirely 

Same as Alternative B Sage-grouse leks inside 

core and connectivity 

habitat areas: 

Surface occupancy or 

surface disturbing 

activities would be 

prohibited or restricted on 

or within 0.25 mile radius 

of the perimeter of 

occupied sage-grouse 

leks (Map 2-2).

Sage-grouse leks inside 

core and connectivity 

habitat areas:

Surface occupancy and 

surface disturbing 

activities would be 

prohibited on or within a 

0.6 mile radius of the 

perimeter of occupied 

sage-grouse leks (Map 2-

3).
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-139

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

have a 4-mile buffer. Within 

this buffer, surface 

disturbing activities will be 

avoided within 4 miles of 

occupied sage-grouse leks 

in areas with sagebrush 

stands greater than 10%

canopy cover (Map 2-1).

Areas Outside of Bates 

Hole and Fish 

Creek/Willow Creek:

Avoid surface-disturbing 

and disruptive activities in 

suitable sage-grouse 

nesting and early broodrearing habitats within 2 

miles of an occupied lek, or 

in identified sage-grouse 

nesting and early broodrearing habitats outside the 

2-mile buffer from March 

15 to July 15 (TLS).

Kemmerer RMP:

Avoid surface disturbance 

or occupancy within 0.25

mile of the perimeter of 

occupied Greater SageGrouse leks (Map 2-1).

Newcastle RMP:

Avoid surface disturbance 

or occupancy within 0.25

mile of the perimeter or 

occupied sage-grouse leks.

Pinedale RMP:

Surface disturbing activities 

in Traditional Leasing 

Areas and Unavailable 

Areas are prohibited in 

suitable habitat within 0.25

within priority habitats, 

a 4-mile NSO would be 

applied around the lek, 

and permitted 

disturbances would be 

limited to 1 per section 

with no more than 3%

surface disturbance in 

that section.

2. If the entire lease is 

within the 4-mile lek 

perimeter, permitted 

disturbances would be 

limited to 1 per section 

with no more than 3%

surface disturbance in 

that section.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-140 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

mile of occupied leks 

(Map 2-1).

Rawlins RMP:

Surface disturbing activities 

or occupancy are 

prohibited on and within 

0.25 mile of the perimeter 

of an occupied Greater 

Sage-Grouse or lek 

(Map 2-1).

Green River RMP:

Active grouse leks (sagegrouse) and the area within 

a 0.25 mile of the perimeter 

of active leks are 

avoidance areas for 

surface disturbing 

activities.

Surface occupancy (longterm or permanent 

aboveground facilities) in 

the Jack Morrow Hills 

planning area will be 

prohibited within 0.25 mile 

of the perimeter of Greater 

Sage-Grouse leks unless 

adverse impacts can be 

mitigated. Distances will be 

subject to change on a 

case-by-case basis 

dependent on applicable 

scientific research and sitespecific analysis (Map 2-1).

TBNG LRMP:

To help reduce adverse 

impacts to breeding sagegrouse and their display 

grounds, prohibit 

construction of new oil and 

gas facilities within 0.25 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-141

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

mile of active display 

grounds. A display ground 

is no longer considered 

active if it’s known to have 

been unoccupied during 

the past 5 breeding 

seasons. This does not 

apply to pipelines and 

underground utilities 

(Map 2-1).

MBNF LRMP:

Prohibit new disturbances 

such as construction, 

drilling, new recreation 

facilities, logging, or other 

concentrated intense

activities according to the 

following table. Short-term 

projects designed to 

improve habitat such as 

prescribed burning are 

permitted: sage-grouse

breeding complexes March 

1 through June 30, 2 miles.

130 Sage-grouse leks outside 

core and connectivity 

habitat areas:

Casper RMP:

Avoid surface disturbance 

or occupancy within 0.25

mile of the perimeter of 

occupied sage-grouse leks 

(Map 2-1). 

Surface disturbing activity 

is restricted or prohibited 

within 0.75 mile of 

occupied sage-grouse leks 

in Bates Hole and Fish 

Creek/Willow Creek.

No similar action No similar action Sage-grouse leks 

outside core and 

connectivity habitat 

areas: 

Surface occupancy or 

surface disturbing 

activities would be 

restricted on or within a 

0.25 mile radius of the 

perimeter of occupied 

sage-grouse leks (Map 2-

2).

Sage-grouse leks 

outside core and 

connectivity habitat 

areas: 

Surface occupancy and 

surface disturbing 

activities would be 

prohibited or restricted on 

or within a 0.25 mile 

radius of the perimeter of 

occupied sage-grouse 

leks (Map 2-3). 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-142 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Occupied sage-grouse leks 

in Bates Hole and Fish 

Creek/Willow Creek will 

have a 4-mile buffer. Within 

this buffer, surface 

disturbing activities will be 

avoided within 4 miles of 

occupied sage-grouse leks 

in areas with sagebrush 

stands greater than 10%

canopy cover (Map 2-1).

Areas Outside of Bates 

Hole and Fish 

Creek/Willow Creek:

Avoid surface-disturbing 

and disruptive activities in 

suitable sage-grouse 

nesting and early broodrearing habitats within 2 

miles of an occupied lek, or 

in identified sage-grouse 

nesting and early broodrearing habitats outside the 

2-mile buffer from March 

15 to July 15 (TLS).

Kemmerer RMP:

Avoid surface disturbance 

or occupancy within 0.25

mile of the perimeter of 

occupied Greater SageGrouse leks (Map 2-1).

Newcastle RMP:

Avoid surface disturbance 

or occupancy within 0.25

mile of the perimeter or 

occupied sage-grouse leks 

(Map 2-1).

Pinedale RMP:

Surface disturbing activities 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-143

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

inside Intensively 

Developed Fields will be 

designed and implemented 

to minimize impacts on 

Greater Sage-Grouse

habitats to the extent 

practicable.

Surface disturbing activities 

in Traditional Leasing 

Areas and Unavailable 

Areas are prohibited in 

suitable habitat within 0.25

mile of occupied leks 

(Map 2-1).

Rawlins RMP:

Surface disturbing activities 

or occupancy are 

prohibited on and within 

0.25 mile of the perimeter 

of an occupied Greater 

Sage-Grouse lek (Map 2-

1).

Green River RMP:

Active grouse leks (sagegrouse) and the area within 

a 0.25 mile of the perimeter 

of active leks are 

avoidance areas for 

surface disturbing 

activities.

Surface occupancy (longterm or permanent 

aboveground facilities) in 

the Jack Morrow Hills 

planning area will be 

prohibited within 0.25 mile 

of the perimeter of Greater 

Sage-Grouse leks unless 

adverse impacts can be 

mitigated. Distances will be 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-144 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

subject to change on a 

case-by-case basis 

dependent on applicable 

scientific research and sitespecific analysis (Map 2-1).

BTNF LRMP:

Not directly addressed;

There are numerous areas 

that are leased that have 

No Surface Occupancy, 

Timing-Limitation, and/or 

Controlled-Surface-Use 

stipulations. Leases are 

issued with unique wildlife 

protection stipulations.

Lessees are required to 

keep an absolute minimum 

number of access, tote

roads, and other 

travelways necessary to 

conduct the lessee's 

operations, the location of 

which shall be designated 

by [Forest] Supervisor prior 

to the time of their 

construction. Operations 

shall be conducted in a 

manner that will offer the 

least possible disturbance 

to wildlife on or adjacent to 

the leased land.

MBNF LRMP:

Prohibit new disturbances 

such as construction, 

drilling, new recreation 

facilities, logging, or other 

concentrated intense 

activities according to the 

following table. Short-term 

projects designed to 

improve habitat such as 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-145

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

prescribed burning are 

permitted: sage-grouse

breeding complexes March 

1 through June 30, 2 miles.

TBNG LRMP:

To help reduce adverse 

impacts to breeding sagegrouse and their display 

grounds, prohibit 

construction of new oil and 

gas facilities within 0.25 

mile of active display 

grounds. A display ground 

is no longer considered 

active if it’s known to have 

been unoccupied during 

the past 5 breeding 

seasons. This does not 

apply to pipelines and 

underground utilities.

131 Sage-grouse breeding, 

nesting, and early broodrearing habitat inside 

core habitat areas:

Casper RMP:

Avoid surface-disturbing 

and disruptive activities in 

suitable sage-grouse 

nesting and early broodrearing habitats within 2 

miles of an occupied lek, or

in identified sage-grouse 

nesting and early broodrearing habitats outside the 

2-mile buffer from March 

15 to July 15 (TLS).

Bates Hole and Fish 

Creek/Willow Creek:

Occupied sage-grouse leks 

Sage-grouse breeding,

nesting, and early 

brood-rearing habitat 

inside priority habitat 

areas: 

A seasonal restriction on 

exploratory drilling that 

prohibits surfacedisturbing activities during 

the nesting and early 

brood-rearing season 

would be applied in all 

sage-grouse priority 

habitat during this period.

Sage-grouse breeding, 

nesting, and early 

brood-rearing habitat in 

priority and general 

habitat areas:

A seasonal restriction on 

exploratory drilling that 

prohibits surfacedisturbing activities during 

the nesting and broodrearing season would be 

applied in all occupied 

sage-grouse habitat 

during this period. This 

seasonal restriction would 

also apply to related 

activities that are 

disruptive to sage-grouse, 

including vehicle traffic 

and other human 

Sage-grouse breeding, 

nesting, and early

brood-rearing habitat 

inside core habitat 

areas: 

Surface disturbing and/or 

disruptive activities would 

be prohibited or restricted 

from March 15-June 30. 

This restriction would be 

applied to all identified 

nesting and early broodrearing habitats inside 

core habitat areas within 2

miles of the lek within 

sage-grouse core habitat 

areas.

Sage-grouse breeding, 

nesting, and early 

brood-rearing habitat 

inside core habitat 

areas: 

Surface disturbing and/or 

disruptive activities would 

be prohibited from March 

1-–June 30 to protect 

sage-grouse breeding, 

nesting, and early brood 

rearing habitat. This timing 

limitation would be applied 

throughout the sagegrouse core area habitats.

Activities in unsuitable 

habitats would be 

evaluated under the 

exception, waiver, and

modification criteria and 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-146 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

will have a 3⁄4-mile CSU 

buffer to protect breeding 

habitats. Human activity 

will be avoided between 8 

p.m. and 8 a.m. from 

March 1 to May 15 (TLS) 

within this buffer. Leks, 

which are currently 

displayed as points, will be 

displayed as polygons.

Occupied sage-grouse leks 

will have a 4-mile buffer. 

Within this buffer, surface 

development or wildlifedisturbing activities will be 

restricted March 15 

through July 15 (TLS). 

Also, within this 4-mile 

buffer (CSU), surface 

disturbing activities will 

avoid sagebrush stands of 

greater than 10% canopy 

cover. Within this 4-mile 

buffer, mitigate for power 

poles and other high profile 

structures that may provide 

raptor perches. Avoid 

placement of these 

structures if possible, or 

install devices to preclude 

raptor perching on the 

structures.

Areas Outside of Bates 

Hole and Fish 

Creek/Willow Creek:

Avoid surface disturbance 

or occupancy within 0.25

mile of the perimeter of 

occupied sage-grouse leks. 

Avoid human activity 

between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. 

presence. could be allowed on a 

case by case basis.

Where credible data 

support different 

timeframes for this 

seasonal restriction, dates 

could be expanded by up 

to 14 days prior to or

subsequent to the above 

dates.
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-147

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

from March 1 to May 15 

(TLS) within 0.25 mile of 

the perimeter of occupied 

sage-grouse leks.

Kemmerer RMP:

Avoid surface-disturbing 

and disruptive activities in 

suitable Greater SageGrouse nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitats 

within 2 miles of an 

occupied lek, or in 

identified Greater SageGrouse nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitats 

outside the 2-mile buffer 

from March 15 through July 

15.

Newcastle RMP:

Avoid surface disturbing 

activities in suitable sagegrouse nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitat within 

two miles of an occupied 

lek or in identified sagegrouse nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitat 

outside the two-mile buffer 

from March 15 through July 

15.

Pinedale RMP:

Surface disturbing activities 

inside Traditional Leasing 

Areas and Unavailable 

Areas will be avoided in 

suitable nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitat within 

2 miles of occupied 

Greater Sage-Grouse leks 

from March 15 to July 15.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-148 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Rawlins RMP:

Avoid surface disturbing 

and disruptive activities, 

geophysical surveys, and 

organized recreational 

activities (events) that 

require a special use 

permit in suitable Greater 

Sage-Grouse nesting and 

early brood rearing habitat 

within 2 miles of the 

perimeter of an occupied 

Greater Sage-Grouse lek, 

or in identified Greater 

Sage-Grouse nesting and 

early brood rearing habitat, 

from March 1 to July 15. 

Green River RMP:

To protect grouse nesting 

habitat, seasonal 

restrictions will apply within 

appropriate distances from 

the grouse lek. Appropriate 

distances (up to two miles) 

and time frames (usually 

from March 1 through July 

15) will be determined on a 

case-by-case basis.

Exceptions to seasonal 

restrictions may be 

granted, provided the 

criteria in can be met.

No disruptive activities in 

the Jack Morrow Hills 

planning area are allowed 

in nesting and early broodrearing habitats (March 15 

to July 15). These 

limitations will be 

determined and applied on 

a case-by-case basis. In 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-149

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

addition, nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitats will 

be protected from habitat 

degradation, and measures 

will be taken to improve 

habitat quality.

TBNG LRMP:

To help reduce 

disturbances to nesting 

sage-grouse, prohibit the 

following activities within 2 

miles of active display 

grounds from March 1 to 

June 15:

1. Construction (e.g., 

roads, water 

impoundments, oil and 

gas facilities)

2. Reclamation

3. Gravel mining 

operations

4. Drilling of water wells

5. Oil and gas drilling

6. Training of hunting 

dogs. 

To reduce disturbances to 

nesting sage-grouse, do 

not authorize the following 

activities within 2 miles of 

active display grounds from 

March 1 to June 15:

1. Construction (e.g., 

pipelines, utilities, 

fencing)

2. Seismic exploration

3. Workover operations for 

maintenance of oil and 

gas wells

4. Permitted recreation 

events involving large 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-150 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

groups of people.

When constructing facilities 

or structures within 2 miles 

of a sage-grouse active 

display ground, design 

them to discourage raptor 

perching by maintaining a 

low profile or using perch 

inhibitors.

Manage display ground 

viewing activities to reduce 

disturbances and adverse 

impacts to the birds on the 

display grounds.

BTNF LRMP:

There are numerous areas 

that are leased that have 

No Surface Occupancy, 

Timing-Limitation, and/or 

Controlled-Surface-Use 

stipulations. Leases are 

issued with unique wildlife 

protection stipulations.

Lessees are required to 

keep an absolute minimum 

number of access, tote 

roads, and other 

travelways necessary to 

conduct the lessee's 

operations, the location of 

which shall be designated 

by [Forest] Supervisor prior 

to the time of their 

construction. Operations 

shall be conducted in a 

manner that will offer the 

least possible disturbance 

to wildlife on or adjacent to 

the leased land.

MBNF LRMP:
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-151

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Prohibit new disturbances 

such as construction, 

drilling, new recreation 

facilities, logging, or other 

concentrated intense 

activities according to the 

following table. Short-term 

projects designed to 

improve habitat such as 

prescribed burning are 

permitted: sage-grouse

breeding complexes March 

1 through June 30, 2 miles.

132 Sage-grouse breeding, 

nesting, and early broodrearing habitat inside 

connectivity habitat 

areas:

Casper RMP:

Avoid surface-disturbing 

and disruptive activities in 

suitable sage-grouse 

nesting and early broodrearing habitats within 2 

miles of an occupied lek, or 

in identified sage-grouse 

nesting and early broodrearing habitats outside the 

2-mile buffer from March 

15 to July 15 (TLS).

Bates Hole and Fish 

Creek/Willow Creek:

Occupied sage-grouse leks 

will have a 3⁄4-mile CSU 

buffer to protect breeding 

habitats. Human activity 

will be avoided between 8 

p.m. and 8 a.m. from 

March 1 to May 15 (TLS) 

within this buffer. Leks, 

No similar action Sage-grouse breeding, 

nesting, and early 

brood-rearing habitat 

inside connectivity 

habitat areas:

A seasonal restriction on 

exploratory drilling that 

prohibits surfacedisturbing activities during 

the nesting and broodrearing season would be 

applied in all occupied 

sage-grouse habitat 

during this period. This 

seasonal restriction shall 

also to apply to related 

activities that are 

disruptive to sage-grouse, 

including vehicle traffic 

and other human

presence.

Sage-grouse breeding, 

nesting, and early 

brood-rearing habitat 

inside connectivity 

habitat areas: 

Surface disturbing and/or 

disruptive activities would 

be prohibited or restricted 

from March 15-June 30. 

This restriction would be 

applied to all identified 

nesting and early broodrearing habitats inside 

core habitat areas within 2

miles of the lek.

Sage-grouse breeding, 

nesting, and early 

brood-rearing habitat 

inside connectivity 

areas: 

Surface disturbing and/or 

disruptive activities would 

be prohibited within 

connectivity habitat from 

March 1–June 30 to 

protect breeding, nesting,

and early brood-rearing 

habitats within 4 miles of 

the lek or lek perimeter of 

any occupied sage-grouse 

lek within identified 

connectivity areas. This 

timing limitation would be 

applied throughout the 

sage-grouse core area 

habitats. Activities in 

unsuitable habitats would 

be evaluated under the 

exception, waiver, and 

modification criteria and 

may be allowed on a 

case-by-case basis.

Where credible data 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-152 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

which are currently 

displayed as points, will be 

displayed as polygons.

Occupied sage-grouse leks 

will have a 4-mile buffer. 

Within this buffer, surface

development or wildlifedisturbing activities will be 

restricted March 15 

through July 15 (TLS). 

Also, within this 4-mile 

buffer (CSU), surface 

disturbing activities will 

avoid sagebrush stands of 

greater than 10% canopy 

cover. Within this 4-mile 

buffer, mitigate for power 

poles and other high profile 

structures that may provide 

raptor perches. Avoid 

placement of these 

structures if possible, or 

install devices to preclude 

raptor perching on the 

structures.

Areas Outside of Bates 

Hole and Fish 

Creek/Willow Creek:

Avoid surface disturbance 

or occupancy within 0.25

mile of the perimeter of 

occupied sage-grouse leks. 

Avoid human activity 

between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. 

from March 1 to May 15 

(TLS) within 0.25 mile of 

the perimeter of occupied 

sage-grouse leks.

Kemmerer RMP:

Avoid surface-disturbing 

support different 

timeframes for this 

seasonal restriction, dates 

could be expanded by 14 

days prior or subsequent 

to the above dates.
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-153

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

and disruptive activities in 

suitable Greater SageGrouse nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitats 

within 2 miles of an 

occupied lek, or in 

identified Greater SageGrouse nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitats 

outside the 2-mile buffer 

from March 15 through July 

15.

Newcastle RMP:

Avoid surface disturbing 

activities in suitable sagegrouse nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitat within 

two miles of an occupied 

lek or in identified sagegrouse nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitat 

outside the two-mile buffer 

from March 15 through July 

15.

Pinedale RMP:

Surface disturbing activities 

inside Intensively 

Developed Fields will be 

designed and implemented 

to minimize impacts on 

Greater Sage-Grouse

habitats to the extent 

practicable.

Surface disturbing activities 

inside Traditional Leasing 

Areas and Unavailable 

Areas will be avoided in 

suitable nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitat within 

2 miles of occupied 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-154 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Greater Sage-Grouse leks 

from March 15 to July 15.

Rawlins RMP:

Avoid surface disturbing 

and disruptive activities, 

geophysical surveys, and 

organized recreational 

activities (events) that 

require a special use 

permit in suitable Greater 

Sage-Grouse and nesting 

and early brood rearing 

habitat within 2 miles of the 

perimeter of an occupied 

Greater Sage-Grouse lek, 

or in identified Greater 

Sage-Grouse nesting and 

early brood rearing habitat, 

from March 1 to July 15. 

Green River RMP:

To protect grouse nesting 

habitat, seasonal 

restrictions will apply within 

appropriate distances from 

the grouse lek. Appropriate 

distances (up to two miles) 

and time frames (usually 

from March 1 through July 

15) will be determined on a 

case-by-case basis.

Exceptions to seasonal 

restrictions may be 

granted, provided the 

criteria in can be met.

No disruptive activities in 

the Jack Morrow Hills 

planning area are allowed 

in nesting and early broodrearing habitats (March 15 

to July 15). These 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-155

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

limitations will be 

determined and applied on 

a case-by-case basis. In 

addition, nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitats will 

be protected from habitat 

degradation, and measures 

will be taken to improve 

habitat quality.

TBNG LRMP:

To help reduce 

disturbances to nesting 

sage-grouse, prohibit the 

following activities within 2 

miles of active display 

grounds from March 1 to 

June 15:

1. Construction (e.g., 

roads, water 

impoundments, oil and 

gas facilities)

2. Reclamation

3. Gravel mining 

operations

4. Drilling of water wells

5. Oil and gas drilling 

6. Training of hunting 

dogs.

To reduce disturbances to 

nesting sage-grouse, do 

not authorize the following 

activities within 2 miles of 

active display grounds from 

March 1 to June 15:

1. Construction (e.g., 

pipelines, utilities, 

fencing)

2. Seismic exploration

3. Workover operations for 

maintenance of oil and 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-156 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

gas wells

4. Permitted recreation 

events involving large 

groups of people.

When constructing facilities 

or structures within 2 miles 

of a sage-grouse active 

display ground, design 

them to discourage raptor 

perching by maintaining a 

low profile or using perch 

inhibitors.

Manage display ground 

viewing activities to reduce 

disturbances and adverse 

impacts to the birds on the 

display grounds.

MBNF LRMP:

Prohibit new disturbances 

such as construction, 

drilling, new recreation 

facilities, logging, or other 

concentrated intense 

activities according to the 

following table. Short-term 

projects designed to 

improve habitat such as 

prescribed burning are 

permitted: sage-grouse

breeding complexes March 

1 through June 30, 2 miles.

133 Sage-grouse breeding, 

nesting, and early broodrearing habitat outside 

sage-grouse core and 

connectivity habitat 

areas: 

Casper RMP:

Avoid surface-disturbing 

No similar action Sage-grouse breeding, 

nesting, and early 

brood-rearing habitat 

outside sage-grouse 

priority and connectivity 

habitat areas: 

A seasonal restriction on 

exploratory drilling that 

prohibits surfaceSage-grouse breeding, 

nesting, and early 

brood-rearing habitat 

outside sage-grouse 

core and connectivity 

habitat areas: 

Surface disturbing and/or 

disruptive activities would 

be prohibited or restricted 

Sage-grouse breeding, 

nesting, and early 

brood-rearing habitat 

outside sage-grouse 

core and connectivity 

habitat areas: 

Surface disturbing and/or 

disruptive activities would 

be prohibited from March 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-157

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

and disruptive activities in 

suitable sage-grouse 

nesting and early broodrearing habitats within 2 

miles of an occupied lek, or 

in identified sage-grouse 

nesting and early broodrearing habitats outside the 

2-mile buffer from March 

15 to July 15 (TLS).

Bates Hole and Fish 

Creek/Willow Creek:

Occupied sage-grouse leks 

will have a 3⁄4-mile CSU 

buffer to protect breeding 

habitats. Human activity 

will be avoided between 8 

p.m. and 8 a.m. from 

March 1 to May 15 (TLS) 

within this buffer. Leks, 

which are currently 

displayed as points, will be 

displayed as polygons.

Occupied sage-grouse leks 

will have a 4-mile buffer. 

Within this buffer, surface 

development or wildlifedisturbing activities will be 

restricted March 15 

through July 15 (TLS). 

Also, within this 4-mile 

buffer (CSU), surface 

disturbing activities will 

avoid sagebrush stands of 

greater than 10% canopy 

cover. Within this 4-mile 

buffer, mitigate for power 

poles and other high profile 

structures that may provide 

raptor perches. Avoid 

placement of these 

disturbing activities during 

the nesting and broodrearing season would be 

applied in all occupied 

sage-grouse habitat 

during this period. This 

seasonal restriction would 

also apply to related 

activities that are 

disruptive to sage-grouse, 

including vehicle traffic 

and other human 

presence.

from March 15–June 30. 

This restriction would be 

applied to all identified 

nesting and early broodrearing habitats outside 

core habitat areas within 2

miles of the lek. 

15–June 30 to protect 

sage-grouse nesting and 

early brood rearing 

habitats within 2 miles of 

the lek or lek perimeter of 

any occupied lek located 

outside core or 

connectivity areas. 

Where credible data 

support different 

timeframes for this 

restriction, dates could be 

expanded by 14 days prior 

or subsequent to the 

above dates.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-158 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

structures if possible, or 

install devices to preclude 

raptor perching on the 

structures.

Areas Outside of Bates 

Hole and Fish 

Creek/Willow Creek:

Avoid surface disturbance 

or occupancy within 0.25

mile of the perimeter of 

occupied sage-grouse leks. 

Avoid human activity 

between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. 

from March 1 to May 15 

(TLS) within 0.25 mile of

the perimeter of occupied 

sage-grouse leks.

Kemmerer RMP:

Avoid surface-disturbing 

and disruptive activities in 

suitable Greater SageGrouse nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitats 

within 2 miles of an 

occupied lek, or in 

identified Greater SageGrouse nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitats 

outside the 2-mile buffer 

from March 15 through July 

15.

Newcastle RMP:

Avoid surface disturbing 

activities in suitable sagegrouse nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitat within 

two miles of an occupied 

lek or in identified sagegrouse nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitat 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-159

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

outside the two-mile buffer 

from March 15 through July 

15.

Pinedale RMP:

Surface disturbing activities 

inside Intensively 

Developed Fields will be 

designed and implemented 

to minimize impacts on 

Greater Sage-Grouse

habitats to the extent 

practicable.

Surface disturbing activities 

inside Traditional Leasing 

Areas and Unavailable 

Areas will be avoided in 

suitable nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitat within 

2 miles of occupied 

Greater Sage-Grouse leks 

from March 15 to July 15.

Rawlins RMP:

Avoid surface disturbing 

and disruptive activities, 

geophysical surveys, and 

organized recreational 

activities (events) that 

require a special use 

permit in suitable Greater 

Sage-Grouse nesting and 

early brood rearing habitat 

within 2 miles of the 

perimeter of an occupied 

Greater Sage-Grouse lek, 

or in identified Greater 

Sage-Grouse nesting and 

early brood rearing habitat, 

from March 1 to July 15. 

Green River RMP:

To protect grouse nesting 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-160 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

habitat, seasonal 

restrictions will apply within 

appropriate distances from 

the grouse lek. Appropriate 

distances (up to two miles) 

and time frames (usually 

from March 1 through July 

15) will be determined on a 

case-by-case basis.

Exceptions to seasonal 

restrictions may be 

granted, provided the 

criteria in can be met.

No disruptive activities in 

the Jack Morrow Hills 

planning area are allowed 

in nesting and early broodrearing habitats (March 15 

to July 15). These 

limitations will be 

determined and applied on 

a case-by-case basis. In 

addition, nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitats will 

be protected from habitat 

degradation, and measures 

will be taken to improve 

habitat quality.

TBNG LRMP:

To help reduce 

disturbances to nesting 

sage-grouse, prohibit the 

following activities within 2 

miles of active display 

grounds from March 1 to 

June 15:

1. Construction (e.g., 

roads, water 

impoundments, oil and 

gas facilities)

2. Reclamation
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-161

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

3. Gravel mining 

operations

4. Drilling of water wells

5. Oil and gas drilling

6. Training of hunting 

dogs.

To reduce disturbances to 

nesting sage-grouse, do 

not authorize the following 

activities within 2 miles of 

active display grounds from 

March 1 to June 15:

1. Construction (e.g., 

pipelines, utilities, 

fencing)

2. Seismic exploration

3. Workover operations for 

maintenance of oil and 

gas wells

4. Permitted recreation 

events involving large 

groups of people.

When constructing facilities 

or structures within 2 miles 

of a sage-grouse active 

display ground, design 

them to discourage raptor 

perching by maintaining a 

low profile or using perch 

inhibitors.

Manage display ground 

viewing activities to reduce 

disturbances and adverse 

impacts to the birds on the 

display grounds.

BTNF LRMP:

There are numerous areas 

that are leased that have 

No Surface Occupancy, 

Timing-Limitation, and/or 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-162 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Controlled-Surface-Use 

stipulations. Leases are 

issued with unique wildlife 

protection stipulations.

Lessees are required to 

keep an absolute minimum 

number of access, tote 

roads, and other 

travelways necessary to 

conduct the lessee's 

operations, the location of 

which shall be designated 

by [Forest] Supervisor prior 

to the time of their 

construction. Operations 

shall be conducted in a 

manner that will offer the 

least possible disturbance 

to wildlife on or adjacent to 

the leased land.

MBNF LRMP:

Prohibit new disturbances 

such as construction, 

drilling, new recreation 

facilities, logging, or other 

concentrated intense 

activities according to the 

following table. Short-term 

projects designed to 

improve habitat such as 

prescribed burning are 

permitted: sage-grouse

breeding complexes March 

1 through June 30, 2 miles.

134 Sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas:

Casper RMP:

As sage-grouse winter 

habitats are designated, a 

TLS will restrict activities 

Sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas:

In priority habitat, the 

following conservation 

measures would be 

provided as terms and 

Same as Alternative B Sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas:

Surface disturbing and/or 

disruptive activities in 

mapped sage-grouse 

winter concentration areas 

Sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas:

Surface disturbing and/or 

disruptive activities in 

sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas would 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-163

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

from November 15 to 

March 14. Within the 

designated winter habitats, 

CSU for surface disturbing 

activities in sagebrush 

stands of greater than 20%

canopy cover. 

Newcastle RMP:

To protect important raptor 

and/or sage- and sharptailed grouse nesting 

habitat, activities or surface 

use will not be allowed 

from February 1 through 

July 31 within certain areas 

encompassed by the 

authorization.

Surface disturbing and 

disruptive activities would 

be avoided in sage-grouse 

winter habitat from 

November 15 through

March 14.

Pinedale RMP:

All surface disturbing 

activities in Traditional 

Leasing Areas and 

Unavailable Areas are 

prohibited in Greater SageGrouse winter 

concentration areas from 

November 15 through 

March 15.

Rawlins RMP:

Surface disturbing and 

disruptive activities 

potentially disruptive to 

delineated Greater SageGrouse and sharp-tailed 

grouse winter 

conditions of the approved 

RMP:

New surface occupancy 

would not be allowed on 

federal leases within 

priority habitats during any 

time of the year. 

within sage-grouse core 

habitat areas would be 

prohibited from November 

15-March 14.

Surface disturbing and/or 

disruptive activities in 

mapped sage-grouse 

winter concentration areas 

supporting connectivity 

populations would be 

prohibited from November 

15-March 14.

be prohibited from 

December 1–March 14 to 

protect core area 

populations of sagegrouse that use these 

winter concentration 

habitats. This timing 

limitation would be applied 

throughout the sagegrouse core area habitats.

Activities in unsuitable 

habitats within core habitat 

areas would be evaluated 

under the exception, 

waiver, and modification 

criteria and could be 

allowed on a case-by-case 

basis.

Protection of additional 

areas of winter 

concentration that are not 

located within the current 

core area boundaries 

would be implemented 

where winter 

concentration areas are 

identified as supporting 

populations of sagegrouse that attend leks 

within core habitat.

Appropriate seasonal 

timing restrictions and 

habitat protection 

measures would be 

considered and evaluated 

in all identified winter 

concentration areas.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-164 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

concentration areas are 

prohibited during the period 

of November 15 to March 

14 for the protection of 

Greater Sage-Grouse and 

sharp-tailed grouse winter 

concentration areas.

Green River RMP:

Seasonal restrictions for 

sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas may 

be identified on a case by 

case basis. Should 

additional seasonal 

restrictions be identified, 

exceptions would be 

handled on a case by case 

basis and include site 

specific analysis.

Disruptive activities in the 

Jack Morrow Hills planning 

area will be prohibited in 

Greater Sage-Grouse

winter concentration areas 

typically from November 15 

to March 14. These areas 

and/or dates are subject to 

change based on new data 

and scientific information.

BTNF LRMP:

There are numerous areas 

that area leased that have 

No Surface Occupancy, 

Timing-Limitation, and/or 

Controlled-Surface-Use 

stipulations. Leases are 

issued with unique wildlife 

protection stipulations.
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-165

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Predation

135 The BLM/Forest Service

would support other 

agencies in their efforts to 

minimize impacts from 

predators.

TBNG LRMP:

Under a Memorandum of 

Understanding, the APHIS 

has primary responsibility 

for predator damage 

control on most National 

Forest System lands for 

actions initiated by APHIS. 

This includes 

responsibilities for ensuring 

compliance with the 

National Environmental 

Policy Act and the 

Endangered Species Act. 

To date, APHIS has 

completed and issued a 

Record of Decision and 

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for their national 

animal damage control 

program and have also 

issued several statewide 

Decision Notices and 

Environmental 

Assessments for predator 

damage control.

Forest Service

responsibilities in predator 

damage control on 

National Forest System 

lands are primarily limited 

to ensuring that APHIS 

programs comply with 

direction in Land and 

No similar action No similar action In addition to 

Alternative A:

The BLM/Forest Service

would implement 

strategies and techniques 

in land management 

decisions that address 

predators shown to pose a 

threat to sage-grouse 

(Appendix F). 

The BLM/Forest Service

would support and 

encourage other agencies 

in their efforts to minimize 

impacts from predators on 

sage-grouse where needs 

have been documented.

Same as Alternative D
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-166 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

Resource Management 

Plans for visitor and user 

safety, mitigation for 

sensitive wildlife species, 

and pesticide use.

Noise

136 Kemmerer RMP:

Locate facilities or use 

BMPs to minimize impacts 

of continuous noise on 

species relying on aural 

cues for successful 

breeding. This requirement 

is based on current 

information, but may be 

subject to change in the 

future based upon new 

information.

Pinedale RMP:

Noise generating activities 

in Traditional Leasing 

Areas and Unavailable 

Areas will be minimized 

through the application of 

BMPs, such as highefficiency mufflers.

TBNG LRMP:

To help prevent 

reproductive failure, limit 

noise on sage-grouse

display grounds from 

nearby facilities and 

activities to 49 decibels (10 

dBA above background 

noise) from March 1 to 

June 15.

Prohibit development or 

operations of facilities 

within 2 miles of a sageNoise would be limited to 

less than 10 decibels 

above ambient measures 

(20-24 dBA) at sunrise at 

the perimeter of a lek 

during active lek season. 

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative A The BLM/Forest Service

would work with 

proponents to limit project 

related noise where it 

would be expected to 

reduce functionality of 

habitats that support core 

and connectivity habitat 

area populations. 

The BLM/Forest Service

would evaluate the 

potential for limitation of 

new noise sources on a 

case-by-case basis as 

appropriate. 

BLM/Forest Service’s 

near-term goal would be 

to limit noise sources that 

would be expected to 

negatively impact core 

habitat area sage-grouse 

populations and to 

continue to support the 

establishment of ambient 

baseline noise levels for 

occupied core habitat area 

leks. 

As additional research and 

information emerges, 

specific new limitations 

appropriate to the type of 

projects being considered 

would be evaluated and 

appropriate limitations 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-167

Action 

Number

Alternative A 

(No Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative)

grouse display ground if 

these activities would 

exceed a noise level of 

more than 10 decibels 

above the background 

noise level (39 db), at 800 

feet from the noise source, 

from March 1 to June 15.

Limit noise levels from oil 

and gas production 

facilities within 0.25 mile of 

developed recreation sites 

to be no more than 70 

decibels, as measured by 

the A-weighted Sound level 

(dBA) system of 

measurements, at the edge 

of the developed site. This 

standard applies only to 

constant, routine, day-today production noises. It 

doesn’t apply to noise from 

drilling and testing of 

production nor temporary 

noises such as work-over 

rigs and maintenance or 

repair tasks.

BTNF LRMP:

Not directly addressed:

Leases are issued with 

unique wildlife protection 

stipulations. Operations 

shall be conducted in a 

manner that will offer the 

least possible disturbance 

to wildlife on or adjacent to 

the leased land.

would be implemented 

where necessary to 

minimize potential for 

noise impacts on sagegrouse core population 

behavioral cycles. 

As new research is 

completed, new specific 

limitations would be 

coordinated with the 

WGFD and partners.

Noise levels at the 0.6 

mile perimeter of the lek 

should not exceed 10 dBA 

above ambient noise.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-168 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Table 2-2 shows the acreage values associated with the land use restrictions presented in Table 2-1. 

Table 2-2. Land Use Restrictions by Alternative 

Resource/Activity Land Use 

Restriction

Alternative A 

(Continuation of 

Existing 

Management) 

(acres)

Alternative B 

(acres)

Alternative C

(acres)

Alternative D

(acres)

Alternative E 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

(acres)

Surface Disturbing 

Activities

Prohibited Areas 68,550 0 0 0 304,970

Restricted Areas 437,680 0 0 75,870 21,950

Fluid Mineral Leasing

Unavailable 871,780 6,809,580 16,878,220 964,860 892,090

No Surface 

Occupancy 40,980 2,082,140 2,082,140 0 689,300

Controlled Surface 

Use 5,015,210 0 0 2,117,990 6,146,570

Rights-of-Way

Exclusion Areas 285,930 5,141,340 11,531,340 5,141,340 285,930

Avoidance Areas 2,460,340 6,390,010 0 1,211,030 6,065,960

Mineral Materials Closed Areas 274,860 5,000,400 5,000,400 274,860 274,860

Locatable Minerals

Existing 

Withdrawals 1,560,050 1,560,050 1,560,050 1,560,050 1,560,050

Proposed 

Withdrawals 117,370 3,442,120 3,442,120 117,370 3,442,120

Solid Leasable 

Minerals (non-energy) Closed Areas 234,230 5,000,400 5,000,400 234,230 234,230

Wind Energy

Closed Areas 437,120 5,000,400 11,531,340 5,000,400 5,002,520

Restricted Areas 3,888,930 6,530,940 0 501,830 6,528,810
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-169

Table 2-3 shows the number of acres of surface and subsurface acres (for conventional oil and gas exploration and development) that are subject to 

leasing restrictions designed to protect sage-grouse habitat. The acreage values provided in the table are organized by the type and level of 

restriction and mineral development potential.

Table 2-3. Areas of Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements by Hydrocarbon Potential for Conventional Oil and Gas 

Fluid Mineral Lease 

Conditional Requirement

Hydrocarbon Development Potential Total3

None Negligible Very Low Low Moderate High Very High

ALTERNATIVE A (Continuation of Existing Management)

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to the Terms and Conditions of 

the Standard Lease Form

2,319,820 41,270 3,863,490 7,016,810 1,538,940 412,130 442,160 15,634,620

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to Moderate Constraints1

276,970 25,860 1,300,340 2,198,270 708,180 232,660 256,330 4,998,610

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to Major Constraints1

2,890 630 3,500 24,320 5,430 1,830 2,140 40,740

Unavailable for Leasing2137,070 0 234,400 347,080 104,050 690 0 823,290

ALTERNATIVE B

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to the Terms and Conditions of 

the Standard Lease Form

2,154,940 57,850 3,243,090 6,405,270 1,731,880 526,130 492,640 14,611,800

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to Moderate Constraints1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to Major Constraints1

6,120 850 507,050 1,138,530 239,700 70,190 117,920 2,080,360

Unavailable for Leasing2581,590 2,640 2,139,690 3,109,570 615,090 115,920 194,910 6,759,410

ALTERNATIVE C

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to the Terms and Conditions of 

the Standard Lease Form

1,485,870 0 1,147,570 2,070,110 70,450 6,490 180 4,780,670

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to Moderate Constraints1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to Major Constraints1

6,120 850 507,050 1,138,530 239,700 0 117,920 2,010,170
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-170 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Fluid Mineral Lease 

Conditional Requirement

Hydrocarbon Development Potential Total3

None Negligible Very Low Low Moderate High Very High

Unavailable for Leasing21,240,940 60,490 4,235,210 7,400,760 2,271,150 635,110 687,370 16,531,030

ALTERNATIVE D

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to the Terms and Conditions of 

the Standard Lease Form

2,438,000 46,860 4,588,830 8,185,350 1,994,700 537,340 546,880 18,337,960

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to Moderate Constraints1

163560 13,630 521,030 944,070 241,170 92,590 140,670 2,116,720

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to Major Constraints1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unavailable for Leasing2134,980 0 272,930 385,430 111,110 12,110 0 916,560

ALTERNATIVE E (Preferred Alternative)

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to the Terms and Conditions of 

the Standard Lease Form

2,123,430 44,890 3,072,880 6,106,310 1,563,500 435,930 357,000 13,703,940

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to Moderate Constraints1

441,960 15,570 1,726,340 2,849,350 638,310 156,420 316,550 6,144,500

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to Major Constraints1

34,110 30 348,190 204,510 39,400 49,010 13,990 689,240

Unavailable for Leasing2137,030 0 244,870 354,720 105,760 690 0 843,070

1

All activities would be subject to intensive mitigation, including offsite placement of facilities; remote control monitoring; restricted or prohibited surface use, including road 

construction; multiple wells from a single pad; central tank batteries and facilities; pipelines and power lines concentrated in specific areas; etc., based on site-specific analysis.

2

Although closed to leasing and related oil and gas activity, any other surface disturbing or disrupting use would follow the surface disturbance prescriptions.

3

Acreage values to not include areas that have not been assessed.
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-171

Table 2-4 shows the number of acres of surface and subsurface acres (for coalbed natural gas exploration and development) that are subject to 

leasing restrictions designed to protect sage-grouse habitat. The acreage values provided in the table are organized by the type and level of 

restriction and mineral development potential. 

Table 2-4. Areas of Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements by Hydrocarbon Potential for Coalbed Natural Gas 

Fluid Mineral Lease 

Conditional Requirement

Hydrocarbon Development Potential Total3

None Negligible Very Low Low Moderate High

ALTERNATIVE A (Continuation of Existing Management)

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to the Terms and Conditions of 

the Standard Lease Form

9,899,620 602,670 2,630,490 1,962,150 407,320 141,230 15,643,480

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to Moderate Constraints1

2,594,430 174,500 953,550 866,440 217,570 187,560 4,944,050

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to Major Constraints1

13,340 1,830 6,650 11,660 2,570 4,760 40,810

Unavailable for Leasing2439,350 366,680 8,830 8,430 4 823,294

ALTERNATIVE B

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to the Terms and Conditions of 

the Standard Lease Form

8,873,000 463,850 2,722,080 1,847,370 473,440 243,560 14,623,300

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to Moderate Constraints1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to Major Constraints1

932,090 149,600 402,470 475,960 76,040 43,630 2,079,790

Unavailable for Leasing24,050,800 301,210 1,196,230 989,580 139,580 74,850 6,752,250

ALTERNATIVE C

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to the Terms and Conditions of 

the Standard Lease Form

4,186,020 1,080 469,630 125,080 5,510 0 4,787,320

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to Moderate Constraints1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to Major Constraints1

932,090 149,600 402,470 475,960 76,040 43,630 2,079,790
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-172 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Fluid Mineral Lease 

Conditional Requirement

Hydrocarbon Development Potential Total3

None Negligible Very Low Low Moderate High

Unavailable for Leasing28,697,240 763,990 3,435,450 2,708,310 605,640 317,630 16,528,260

ALTERNATIVE D

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to the Terms and Conditions of 

the Standard Lease Form

1,1342,970 636,130 3,110,650 2,470,950 525,960 255,510 18,342,170

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to Moderate Constraints1

1,144,200 89,500 405,020 336,570 78,630 62,900 1,116,820

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to Major Constraints1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unavailable for Leasing2436,630 39,430 402,630 29,430 8,430 4 916,554

ALTERNATIVE E (Preferred Alternative)

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to the Terms and Conditions of 

the Standard Lease Form

8,521,800 436,200 2,464,210 1,676,670 417,390 199,070 13,715,340

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to Moderate Constraints1

3,467,850 315,430 1,011,430 1,053,070 177,950 112,610 6,138,340

Available for Leasing, Subject 

to Major Constraints1

490,040 13,440 70,520 98,360 9,250 6,730 688,340

Unavailable for Leasing2453,650 0 372,150 8,850 8,430 4 843,084

1

All activities would be subject to intensive mitigation, including offsite placement of facilities; remote control monitoring; restricted or prohibited surface use, including road 

construction; multiple wells from a single pad; central tank batteries and facilities; pipelines and power lines concentrated in specific areas; etc., based on site-specific analysis.

2

Although closed to leasing and related oil and gas activity, any other surface disturbing or disrupting use would follow the surface disturbance prescriptions.

3

Acreage values to not include areas that have not been assessed.

Table 2-5. Threats to Greater Sage-Grouse and Associated Management Actions 

Resource/Resource 

Use

Alternative A (No 

Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Oil and Gas Development

Unleased Fluid Minerals

Areas closed to fluid 871,780 acres 6,809,580 acres 16,878,220 acres 964,860 acres 892,090 acres
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-173

Resource/Resource 

Use

Alternative A (No 

Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

mineral leasing (acres) Existing acres closed to 

fluid mineral leasing 

(mostly WSAs).

No new areas would be 

leased in sage-grouse 

priority habitat. 

No new areas would be 

leased in sage-grouse 

priority habitat and 

sage-grouse general 

habitat. 

Existing acres closed to 

fluid mineral leasing 

(mostly WSAs). Plus, 2 

additional SMAs would 

be created closing 

119,499 acres to 

leasing.

No new areas would be 

closed to leasing. The 

Wyoming core area 

strategy would apply 

(timing, distance, 

disturbance, and 

density restriction) in

sage-grouse core 

habitat. 

A minimum lease size of 

640 contiguous acres of 

federal mineral estate 

would be applied within 

sage-grouse core habitat 

areas.

A minimum lease size 

will not be applied within 

sage-grouse core 

habitat areas.

A minimum lease size 

would not be applied 

within sage-grouse 

priority habitat areas 

(sage-grouse priority 

habitat areas are not 

available for oil and gas 

leasing).

A minimum lease size 

would not be applied 

within sage-grouse 

priority habitat areas 

(sage-grouse priority 

habitat areas are not 

available for oil and gas 

leasing).

A minimum lease size 

would not be applied 

within sage-grouse 

core habitat areas.

A minimum lease size 

of 640 contiguous 

acres of federal mineral 

estate would be applied 

within sage-grouse 

core habitat areas.

Smaller parcels could

be leased only when 

640 contiguous acres 

of federal mineral 

estate is not available

and leasing is 

necessary.

By implementing a 

minimum lease size, 

the BLM/Forest Service

could limit the density 

of oil and gas or mining 

activities to no more 

than an average of 1 

location per 640 acres.

In areas that previously 

may have been leased 

as a 40-acre parcel, 

this would not be 

possible. By leasing a 

minimum of 640 acres, 

the BLM and Forest 

Service could commit 

to only one surface 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-174 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Resource/Resource 

Use

Alternative A (No 

Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

disturbance per square

mile rather than 

multiple disturbances.

This may require 

sharing of well pads to 

meet valid existing 

rights.

Leased Fluid Minerals

Restrictions on surface 

disturbance for leased 

fluid minerals.

NSO on 40,980 acres

CSU on 5,015,210 acres

Various stipulations 

apply, but most are not 

specific to Greater 

Sage-Grouse or Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat.

NSO on 2,082,140

acres

A 4-mile NSO would be 

applied around leks in 

sage-grouse priority 

habitat and limit 

disturbances to 1 per 

section with no more 

than 3 percent

disturbance in that 

section.

Sage-grouse 

nesting/early broodrearing habitat inside 

priority habitat areas: 

A seasonal restriction 

would be applied on 

exploratory drilling that 

prohibits surfacedisturbing activities 

during the nesting and 

early brood-rearing 

season in all sagegrouse priority habitat 

during this period.

Sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas:

In priority habitat, the 

following conservation 

measures would be 

NSO on 2,082,140

acres

A 4-mile NSO would be 

applied around leks in 

sage-grouse priority 

habitat and limit 

disturbances to 1 per 

section with no more 

than 3 percent

disturbance in that 

section.

Sage-grouse 

nesting/early broodrearing habitat in 

priority and general 

habitat areas:

A seasonal restriction 

would be applied on 

exploratory drilling that 

prohibits surfacedisturbing activities 

during the nesting and 

brood-rearing season 

in all occupied sagegrouse habitat during 

this period. This 

seasonal restriction 

would also to apply to 

related activities that 

are disruptive to sagegrouse, including 

CSU on 2,117,990 

acres

A 0.6 mile NSO would 

be applied around leks 

in sage-grouse core 

habitat and do not 

exceed an average of 

three energy 

production locations 

and/or transmission 

structures per 640 

acres within the DDCT; 

and the combined 

value of existing and 

proposed disturbances 

within each DDCT will 

not exceed 9 percent 

loss of sagebrush 

habitat.

Sage-grouse 

nesting/early broodrearing habitat inside 

core habitat areas: 

Surface disturbing 

and/or disruptive 

activities are prohibited 

or restricted from 

March 15-June 30.

Sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas:

NSO on 689,300 acres

CSU on 6,146,570

acres

A 0.6 mile NSO would 

be applied around leks 

in sage-grouse core

habitat and limit the 

density of oil and gas or 

mining activities to no 

more than an average 

of 1 location per 640 

acres; and to limit all 

surface disturbance 

(any program area) to 

no more than 5% of the 

core landscape using 

the DDCT process 

described in 

Appendix I.

Sage-grouse 

nesting/early broodrearing habitat in core 

habitat areas: 

Surface disturbing 

and/or disruptive 

activities would be 

prohibited from March 

1–June 30 to protect 

sage-grouse breeding, 

nesting, and early 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-175

Resource/Resource 

Use

Alternative A (No 

Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

provided as terms and 

conditions of the 

approved RMP:

New surface 

occupancy would not 

be allowed on federal 

leases within priority 

habitats during any 

time of the year.

Unless the lease is 

entirely within priority 

habitats, a 4-mile NSO 

would be applied 

around the lek.

vehicle traffic and other 

human presence.

Sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas:

In priority habitat, the 

following conservation 

measures would be 

provided as terms and 

conditions of the 

approved RMP:

New surface 

occupancy would not 

be allowed on federal 

leases within priority 

habitats during any 

time of the year.

Surface disturbing 

and/or disruptive 

activities in mapped 

sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas 

within sage-grouse 

core habitat areas 

would be prohibited 

from November 15-

March 14.

Surface disturbing 

and/or disruptive 

activities in mapped 

sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas 

supporting connectivity 

populations would be 

prohibited from 

November 15-

March 14.

brood rearing habitat. 

This timing limitation 

would be applied 

throughout the sagegrouse core area 

habitats.

Sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas:

Surface disturbing 

and/or disruptive 

activities in sagegrouse winter 

concentration areas 

would be prohibited 

from December 1–

March 14 to protect 

core area populations 

of sage-grouse that use 

these winter 

concentration habitats.

This timing limitation 

would be applied 

throughout the sagegrouse core area 

habitats. 

Activities in unsuitable 

habitats within core 

habitat areas would be 

evaluated under the 

exception, waiver, and 

modification criteria and 

could be allowed on a 

case-by-case basis.

Protection of additional 

areas of winter 

concentration that are 

not located within the 

current core area 

boundaries, would be 

implemented where 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-176 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Resource/Resource 

Use

Alternative A (No 

Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

winter concentration 

areas are identified as 

supporting populations 

of Greater SageGrouse that attend leks 

within core. Appropriate 

seasonal timing 

restrictions and habitat 

protection measures 

would be considered 

and evaluated in all 

identified winter 

concentration areas.

Summary of Impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse

from Oil and Gas 

Development

Alternatives B and C close core/priority habitat to surface occupancy, but with exceptions, which responds to the objective

(identified in the COT Report, (USFWS 2013)) to stop population declines and habitat loss. There is an urgent need to “stop the 

bleeding” of continued population declines and habitat losses by acting immediately to eliminate or reduce the impacts contributing 

to population declines and range erosion. Alternatives B and C close Greater Sage-Grouse habitat to fluid mineral leasing – the 

greater number of acres protected from surface disturbing and disruptive activities, the greater reduction in potential activities 

known to negatively impact Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.

The action alternatives include the following conservation measures identified in the COT Report specific to Energy Development:

1. Avoid energy development in PACs (Doherty et al. 2010). Identify areas where leasing is not acceptable, or not acceptable 

without stipulations for surface occupancy that maintains sage-grouse habitats.

2. If avoidance is not possible within PACs due to pre-existing valid rights, adjacent development or split estate issues, 

development should only occur in non-habitat areas, including all appurtenant structures, with an adequate buffer that is 

sufficient to preclude impacts to sage-grouse habitat from noise and other human activities.

By limiting disturbances within sage-grouse priority habitat (Alternative D and E), both sage-grouse priority habitat and sage-grouse 

general habitat (Alternative C), the action of reducing threats to intact shrub land would have more restrictions on fluid mineral 

development than Alternative A. See Chapter 4 for a complete description of impacts from fluid mineral leasing on Greater SageGrouse.

Infrastructure/Anthropogenic

ROW exclusion and 

avoidance areas

285,930 acres would be 

ROW exclusion areas.

Various ROW avoidance 

areas designated, but 

most are not specific to 

protect Greater SageGrouse and Greater 

5,141,340acres would 

be ROW exclusion 

areas.

No new acres of 

avoidance since sagegrouse priority habitat

would be an exclusion 

11,531,340acres would 

be ROW exclusion 

areas.

No new acres of 

avoidance since sagegrouse priority habitat

and sage-grouse 

general habitat would 

5,141,340acres would 

be ROW exclusion 

areas.

No new acres of 

avoidance since sagegrouse core habitat

would be an exclusion 

285,930 acres would 

be ROW exclusion 

areas.

New acres of 

avoidance in sagegrouse core habitat.

Portions of sage-
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-177

Resource/Resource 

Use

Alternative A (No 

Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Sage-Grouse habitat. area. 

General sage-grouse 

habitat areas would be 

managed as avoidance 

areas for new ROWs or 

SUAs.

be an exclusion area. area.

General sage-grouse 

habitat areas would be 

available for new 

ROWs or SUAs, 

subject to BMPs.

grouse general habitat 

areas would be 

managed as ROW 

avoidance areas. 

Within sage-grouse 

general habitat:

Where new 

ROWs/SUAs are 

necessary in general 

sage-grouse habitat,

new ROWs/

SUAs would be colocated within existing 

ROWs/SUAs.

Appropriate sagegrouse seasonal timing 

constraints would be 

applied.

Avoidance areas for 

large transmission lines 

(>240kV) corridors

2,460,340 acres would 

be ROW avoidance 

areas.

ROW corridors have 

been designated and 

are not specific to 

protect Greater SageGrouse and Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat.

6,390,010 acres would 

be ROW avoidance 

areas.

In sage-grouse priority 

habitat new 

transmission corridors 

would not be 

authorized.

New above-ground 

transmission structures 

would be prohibited 

both inside and outside 

existing corridors.

No avoidance areas for 

large transmission lines 

identified.

1,211,030acres would 

be ROW avoidance 

areas.

Sage-grouse core and 

connectivity habitat 

areas: 

New transmission 

projects would be 

allowed in existing 

designated utility 

corridors. New 

transmission projects 

would be allowed within 

the proposed 2-mile 

wide transmission line 

corridor through sagegrouse core habitat 

population areas in 

south-central and 

southwestern Wyoming 

and within one half mile 

6,065,960 acres would 

be ROW avoidance 

areas.

New transmission 

projects would be 

allowed within the 2-

mile wide transmission 

line route through sagegrouse core habitat 

population areas in 

south-central and 

southwestern Wyoming 

and within 0.5 on either 

side of existing 115 kV 

or larger transmission 

lines (creating a route 

no wider than 1 mile). 

New transmission 

projects proposed 

outside of these areas 

would be considered 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-178 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Resource/Resource 

Use

Alternative A (No 

Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

either side of existing 

115 kV or larger 

transmission lines.

where it can be 

demonstrated that 

declines in sage-grouse 

populations could be 

avoided through project 

design and/or 

mitigation.

New electric distribution 

lines would be buried

where feasible. If not 

feasible, overhead lines 

would be located at 

least 0.6 miles from the 

perimeter of occupied 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

leks and raptor perch 

deterrents would be 

installed.

Wind energy 

management

Wind energy 

development would be 

prohibited on 437,120

acres.

Wind energy 

development would be 

allowed within sagegrouse core habitat 

areas, except in areas 

that are currently 

unavailable due to the 

need to protect sensitive 

resources.

Wind energy 

development would be 

prohibited on 5,000,400

acres.

Wind energy 

development would be 

prohibited in sagegrouse priority and 

general habitat areas

Wind energy 

development would be 

prohibited on 

11,531,340 acres.

Wind energy 

development would be 

prohibited in sagegrouse priority and 

general habitat areas

Wind energy 

development would be 

prohibited on 

5,000,400acres.

Wind energy 

development would be 

prohibited in sagegrouse core habitat 

areas, unless it can be 

sufficiently 

demonstrated that the 

development activity 

would not result in 

declines of sagegrouse core habitat 

populations. 

Sufficient 

demonstration of “no 

declines” should be 

coordinated with the 

WGFD and USFWS. 

Wind energy 

development would be 

prohibited on 5,002,520

acres.

Wind energy 

development would be 

prohibited in sagegrouse core habitat 

areas, unless it can be 

sufficiently 

demonstrated that the 

development activity 

would not result in 

declines of sagegrouse core habitat 

populations. 

Sufficient 

demonstration of “no 

declines” should be 

coordinated with the 

WGFD and USFWS. 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-179

Resource/Resource 

Use

Alternative A (No 

Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Areas that are currently 

unavailable due to the 

need to protect 

sensitive resources 

would remain 

unavailable to wind 

energy development.

Areas that are currently 

unavailable due to the 

need to protect 

sensitive resources 

would remain 

unavailable to wind 

energy development.

Travel management 

open/closed/limited 

areas respectively

Motorized travel would 

be limited to existing 

roads, primitive roads, 

and trails at a minimum, 

until such time as travel 

management planning is 

complete and routes are 

either designated or 

closed.

Travel management 

planning on National 

Forest and National 

Grasslands is complete.

Motorized travel is 

restricted to designated 

routes and areas.

Motorized travel would 

be limited to existing 

roads, primitive roads, 

and trails at a 

minimum, until such 

time as travel 

management planning 

is complete and routes 

are either designated 

or closed.

Activity level travel 

plans would be 

completed within five 

years of the record of 

decision.

Limit motorized travel 

to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and 

trails at a minimum, 

until such time as travel 

management planning 

is complete and routes 

are either designated 

or closed.

Activity level travel 

plans would be 

completed within five 

years of the record of 

decision.

New road construction 

would be prohibited 

within 4 miles of active 

sage-grouse leks, and 

new road construction

would be avoided in 

sage-grouse priority 

and general habitat

Limit motorized travel 

to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and 

trails at a minimum, 

until such time as travel 

management planning 

is complete and routes 

are either designated 

or closed.

New roads would avoid 

areas within 0.25 mile 

of the perimeter of 

occupied sage-grouse 

leks within sage-grouse 

core habitat areas.

Limit motorized travel 

to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and 

trails at a minimum, 

until such time as travel 

management planning 

is complete and routes 

are either designated or 

closed.

New primary and 

secondary (BLM route 

category) or Route 

Category level 4 and 5 

(Forest Service) roads 

would avoid areas 

within 1.9 miles of the 

perimeter of occupied 

sage-grouse leks within 

sage-grouse core 

habitat areas.

Other new roads would 

avoid areas within 0.6 

miles of the perimeter 

of occupied sagegrouse leks within core 

habitat areas.

Summary of Impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse

from Infrastructure

Alternatives B and C close priority habitat to surface occupancy, but with exceptions, which responds to the objective (identified in 

the COT Report [USFWS 2013]) to stop population declines and habitat loss. There is an urgent need to “stop the bleeding “of

continued population declines and habitat losses by acting immediately to eliminate or reduce the impacts contributing to population 

declines and range erosion. Alternatives B and C excludes priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat areas from new BLM ROW or 

Forest Service Special Use Authorization (SUA) Permits; new transmission corridors would not be

authorized in priority and connectivity habitats; and motorized travel would be limited to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails at 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-180 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Resource/Resource 

Use

Alternative A (No 

Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

a minimum, until such time as travel management planning is complete and routes are either designated or closed. The greater 

number of acres protected from surface disturbing, disruptive activities and overhead structures, the greater reduction in potential 

activities known to negatively impact Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.

Alternatives B and C are in agreement with the following conservation objectives/options identified in the COT Report specific to 

infrastructure:

1. Avoid development of infrastructure within PACs (objective).

2. Avoid construction of these features in sage-grouse habitat, both within and outside of PACs (option).

3. Restrictions limiting use of roads should be enforced (option).

Alternative A, in general has the least protections for Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse habitat from development of 

infrastructure. Alternative B would have more restrictions on route construction and upgrades, as well as ROWs than Alternative A, 

D, and E, but would have fewer than Alternative C. See Chapter 4 for a complete description of impacts from lands and realty on 

Greater Sage-Grouse. See Chapter 4 for a complete description of impacts from travel management on Greater Sage-Grouse.

Agriculture/Urbanization

Areas identified for 

disposal

Various parcels 

identified for disposal for 

consolidation of 

management without 

regard for Greater SageGrouse habitat.

Identify areas where acquisitions (including 

subsurface mineral rights) or conservation 

easements, would benefit sage-grouse habitat.

Retain public ownership of priority habitat.

Various parcels 

identified for disposal 

for consolidation of 

management without 

regard for Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat.

Identify areas where 

acquisitions (including 

subsurface mineral 

rights) or conservation 

easements, would 

benefit sage-grouse 

habitat. Retain public 

ownership of priority 

habitat.

Areas identified for 

acquisition

No parcels identified in 

existing plans for land 

tenure adjustments.

The BLM/Forest 

Service would seek to 

acquire state and 

private lands with intact 

subsurface mineral 

estate by donation, 

purchase, or other land 

tenure adjustments in 

order to best conserve, 

enhance, or restore 

Greater Sage-Grouse

habitat.

The BLM/Forest 

Service would strive to 

acquire Greater SageGrouse habitat in sagegrouse priority habitat

and sage-grouse 

general habitat.

The BLM/Forest 

Service would acquire 

lands based on a 

variety of economic 

resources criteria. 

Consider land tenure 

adjustments outside of 

sage-grouse core 

habitat if it can be 

exchanged for lands 

within sage-grouse 

core habitat.

The BLM/Forest 

Service would utilize 

sage-grouse habitat 

requirements to 

prioritize parcels for 

land tenure 

adjustments within core 

habitats.

Summary of Impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse

from Agriculture/

Across all action alternatives, the BLM would take advantage of opportunities to consolidate Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Although 

agriculture and urbanization have been identified as threats in Wyoming, the BLM has limited management authority over those 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-181

Resource/Resource 

Use

Alternative A (No 

Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Urbanization types of activities. 

The action alternatives are in agreement with the following conservation objectives/options identified in the COT Report specific to 

infrastructure:

1. Limit urban and exurban development in sage-grouse habitats and maintain intact native sagebrush plant communities 

(objective).

2. Acquire and manage sage-grouse habitat to maintain intact ecosystems (option).

See Chapter 4 for a complete description of impacts from land tenure on Greater Sage-Grouse.

Areas prioritized for 

vegetation treatments

Few restrictions on 

habitat restoration 

actions, with the most 

potential for vegetation 

disturbance. There 

would be no 

prioritization of habitat 

restoration in Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat. 

TBNG LRMP:

In big sagebrush and 

sage-grouse wintering 

habitat, do not prescribe 

burn or treat with 

herbicides unless it can 

be demonstrated to be 

beneficial for local sagegrouse populations.

Treatments should not 

be conducted where 

shrub canopy cover of 

sagebrush averages 

less than 15%. Limit 

treatments to less than

80-acre patches and no 

more than 20% of the 

sagebrush stands in the 

wintering habitat. Big 

sagebrush stands within 

100 yards of meadows, 

riparian areas, and other 

Across all action alternatives, treatments would be 

prioritized to consider Greater Sage-Grouse

habitat requirements.

In addition to 

Alternative A: For 

vegetation treatments 

in sagebrush within 

core habitat areas, 

refer to Appendix A and

WGFD Protocols for 

Treating Sagebrush to 

Benefit Sage-grouse 

(WGFD 2011, as 

updated). These 

recommended 

protocols would be 

used in determining 

whether proposed 

treatment constitutes a 

“disturbance” that will 

contribute toward the 

9% threshold for 

habitat maintenance. 

Additionally, these 

protocols would be 

used to determine 

whether the proposed 

treatment configuration 

would be expected to 

have neutral or 

beneficial impacts for 

core populations or if 

they represent 

additional habitat loss 

or fragmentation. 

For vegetation 

treatments in 

sagebrush within core 

habitat areas, refer to 

WGFD Protocols for 

Treating Sagebrush to 

Benefit Sage-grouse. 

These recommended 

protocols will be used 

in determining whether 

proposed treatment 

constitutes a 

“disturbance” that will 

contribute toward the 

5% threshold within 

sage-grouse core 

habitat maintenance or 

not. 

Additionally, these 

protocols would be 

used to determine 

whether the proposed 

treatment configuration 

would be expected to 

have neutral or 

beneficial impacts for 

core populations or if 

they represent 

additional habitat loss 

or fragmentation. 

Treatments to enhance 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-182 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Resource/Resource 

Use

Alternative A (No 

Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

foraging habitats should 

not be burned or 

sprayed.

Treatments to enhance 

sagebrush/grasslands 

habitat for sage-grouse 

would be evaluated 

based upon habitat 

quality and the 

functionality/use of 

treated habitats posttreatment.

The BLM/Forest 

Service would work 

collaboratively with 

partners at the state 

and local level to 

maintain and enhance 

sage-grouse habitats in 

a manner consistent 

with the core 

population area 

strategy for 

conservation.

sagebrush/grasslands 

habitat for sage-grouse 

would be evaluated 

based upon habitat 

quality and the 

functionality/use of 

treated habitats posttreatment.

Areas closed to livestock 

grazing

No areas identified as 

closed to livestock 

grazing.

Allotments not meeting 

standards due to 

livestock grazing in 

sage-grouse priority 

habitat would

incorporate a light 

grazing management 

strategy utilizing a 20-

30% forage allocation 

for livestock.

BLM/Forest Servicemanaged lands within 

sage-grouse priority 

habitat would be closed 

to livestock grazing.

No areas identified as 

closed to livestock 

grazing.

Retirement of grazing 

privileges would be 

maintained as an 

option in sage-grouse 

core habitat areas 

when the current 

permittee is willing to 

retire grazing on all or 

part of an allotment.

No areas identified as 

closed to livestock 

grazing.

Retirement of grazing 

privileges would be 

maintained as an 

option in sage-grouse 

core habitat areas 

when the current 

permittee is willing to 

retire grazing on all or 

part of an allotment.

Areas available for 

livestock grazing

BLM/Forest Servicemanaged lands within 

the planning area would 

be available for livestock 

grazing.

BLM/Forest Servicemanaged lands within 

sage-grouse priority 

habitat and sagegrouse general habitat

would be available for 

No areas would be 

available for livestock 

grazing on BLM/Forest 

Service-administered 

lands within priority 

habitat.

BLM/Forest Servicemanaged lands within 

sage-grouse core 

habitat and sagegrouse general habitat

would be available for 

BLM/Forest Servicemanaged lands within 

sage-grouse core

habitat and sagegrouse general habitat

would be available for 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-183

Resource/Resource 

Use

Alternative A (No 

Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

livestock grazing. livestock grazing. livestock grazing.

Wild horse and burro 

management

Gathers prioritized 

without consideration of 

Greater Sage-Grouse

habitat requirements.

HMAs would be 

prioritized for gathers 

that are within sagegrouse priority habitat.

HMAs would be 

prioritized for gathers 

that are within sagegrouse priority habitat.

Wild horse and burro 

populations would be 

managed at an 

appropriate 

management level, 

utilizing sage-grouse

core habitat condition 

as one key parameter 

for setting these levels, 

where BLM HMA’s and 

core habitat overlap.

Within core habitat, the 

BLM/Forest Service

would review and 

consider amending 

BLM Herd 

Management Area 

Plans (HMAPs) to 

incorporate sagegrouse habitat 

objectives and 

management 

considerations for all 

BLM herd management 

areas (HMAs).

Summary of Impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse

from Grazing

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat considerations within livestock grazing allotments and wild horse management areas would be similar 

across all action alternatives. Range improvements are more restricted under Alternatives B and C than under Alternative D and E.

Under Alternative C, the potential for increased fencing in order to prevent trespass exists. Under Alternative A, grazing would be 

managed to achieve the standards of rangeland health. Consequently in most scenarios, Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

requirements would be addressed. However, in some localized situations a lack of focus on Greater Sage-Grouse specific issues 

would result in adverse impacts. Alternative B puts specific focus on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat requirements in priority habitat to 

preclude potential adverse impacts with regard to both the livestock themselves and project infrastructure. Because Alternative C 

closes sage-grouse priority habitat and sage-grouse general habitat to grazing, adverse issues on public lands would be precluded, 

but actions taken on private land to compensate for loss of public grazing might affect Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and could be 

substantial (for example, volumes of fencing would likely be constructed to hold livestock on private lands). Alternatives D and E 

would apply the specific focus on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat described for Alternative B to sage-grouse priority habitat. For 

additional detail on impacts from range management on Greater Sage-Grouse, refer to Chapter 4.

Invasive Species

Weed control priority 

areas

Analysis of the impacts from weeds on Greater Sage-Grouse were considered in the impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse section, 

including, under the impacts from lands and realty on Greater Sage-Grouse, impacts from fluid minerals on Greater Sage-Grouse

and impacts from wildfire suppression, fuels management and fire rehabilitation sections. However, weed infestations are 

considered a localized threat in the Wyoming Basin sub-population and a present and widespread threat in the Jackson Hole subpopulation in Wyoming by the Conservation Objectives Team (COT) Report (USFWS 2013).

Wildfire

Fire suppression priority 

areas

Fire suppression 

priorities without 

consideration of Greater 

In sage-grouse priority 

habitat, suppression 

would be prioritized 

In sage-grouse priority 

habitat, suppression 

would be prioritized 

Fire suppression 

priorities without 

consideration of 

In Addition to 

Alternative A: In Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-184 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Resource/Resource 

Use

Alternative A (No 

Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Sage-Grouse habitat 

requirements.

immediately after 

firefighter and public 

safety to conserve the 

habitat.

In sage-grouse general 

habitat, a high priority

would be assigned for 

suppression where 

wildfires threaten priority 

sage-grouse habitat.

immediately after 

firefighter and public 

safety to conserve the 

habitat.

In sage-grouse 

general habitat, a high 

priority would be 

assigned for 

suppression where 

wildfires threaten 

priority sage-grouse 

habitat.

Greater Sage-Grouse

habitat requirements.

(priority and general 

habitat), suppression will 

be a high priority and 

commensurate with 

values at risk.

Sage-grouse general 

habitat would be 

assigned a priority 

commensurate with its 

importance in the local 

fire plan.

Disease

Although impacts from West Nile Virus to Greater Sage-Grouse are considered in the analysis, the vast majority of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in the planning 

area have not been experiencing West Nile outbreaks, perhaps because these areas have not been experiencing the mean daily temperature reaches of 21 

degrees Celsius which turns on the Culex tarsalis development cycle (Naugle et al. 2005). To address future conditions and new locations of West Nile virus 

outbreaks, see RDFs for a description of features designed to reduce the threat of West Nile Virus (Appendix B, Required Design Features).

Coal Mining

Areas identified as 

unsuitable for coal 

mining

234,230 acres

Various areas found 

unsuitable for coal 

mining, but few tied 

specifically to protection 

of Greater Sage-Grouse

habitat.

5,000,400 acres

Under Alternatives B and C, the BLM/Forest 

Service would find sage-grouse priority habitat

unsuitable for surface mining. 

The BLM would grant no new sub-surface mining 

leases unless all facilities could be located outside 

of sage-grouse priority habitat.

234,230 acres

In addition to Alternative A:

Coal – Surface Mining Methods—

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

would be applied and the area would be identified 

as suitable for further coal leasing consideration 

after consultation with the state and where 

applicable, surface management agency, to 

determine that all or certain stipulated methods of 

coal mining would not have a significant long-term 

impact on the sage-grouse. Special conditions 

could be required as identified during the leasing 

process to protect sage-grouse resources.

Weather

There is no resource program in an RMP for addressing this threat to Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat.
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-185

Resource/Resource 

Use

Alternative A (No 

Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

Predation

See Appendix B (Required Design Features) and Appendix F (Predator Management) for Lands and Realty and Minerals for a description of features designed 

to reduce the threat of predation.

Conifers

Although impacts from conifer encroachment on Greater Sage-Grouse are considered in the analysis, the vast majority of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in the 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse 9 Plan is not affected by conifer encroachment. Areas where encroachment is an issue will be encumbered by the vegetation 

treatment protocols and management actions prescribed in this plan for Greater Sage-Grouse habitats.

Prescribed Fire

Areas suitable for 

prescribed fire use

Treatments considered 

on a case-by-case 

basis, and not prioritized 

specific to Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat.

No treatments would 

be allowed in known 

winter range in sagegrouse priority habitat, 

unless treatment is 

designed to 

strategically reduce 

wildfire risk around or 

in winter range and will 

maintain winter habitat 

range quality.

No treatments would 

be allowed in known 

winter range in ADH, 

unless treatment is 

designed to 

strategically reduce 

wildfire risk around or 

in winter range and will 

maintain winter habitat 

range quality.

No similar action In sage-grouse core

habitat, fuels 

treatments would be 

designed and 

implemented with an 

emphasis on protecting 

existing sagebrush 

ecosystems and 

enhancing and 

protecting future 

sagebrush ecosystems 

(refer to Appendix A 

and WGFD Protocols 

for Treating Sagebrush 

to Benefit sagegrouse).

Water Development

Identify number, type, 

and location of range 

water developments

Although impacts from West Nile Virus to Greater Sage-Grouse are considered in the analysis, the vast majority of Greater SageGrouse habitat in Wyoming exists at elevations above where West Nile virus is commonly found (Naugle et al. 2005). Refer to 

required design features for a description of features designed to reduce the threat of West Nile Virus (Appendix B).

Recreation

Outdoor Recreation 

Management

Recreation permit 

priorities, those in TBNG 

tied specifically to 

protection of Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat.

BLM Special Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) and 

Forest Service

Recreation Special Use 

Authorizations (RSUAs)

would be allowed in 

priority habitat only if 

BLM Special 

Recreation Permits 

(SRPs) and Forest 

Service Recreation 

Special Use 

Authorizations 

(RSUAs) would be 

In addition to 

Alternative A: BLM 

SRPs and Forest 

Service Recreation 

Special Use 

Authorizations would 

be allowed in sageIn addition to 

Alternative A: BLM 

Special Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) and 

Forest Service

Recreation Special Use 

Authorizations (RSUAs)
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-186 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Resource/Resource 

Use

Alternative A (No 

Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

they have neutral or 

beneficial effects to 

priority habitat areas.

allowed in priority 

habitat only if they

have neutral or 

beneficial effects to 

priority habitat areas.

grouse core habitat on 

a case by case basis 

consistent with other 

resource values.

would be allowed in core 

habitat if negative 

impacts to sage-grouse 

can be adequately 

mitigated. 

Hard Rock Mining

Locatable Minerals 117,370 acres would be 

proposed for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral 

entry.

Various areas 

recommended for 

withdrawal/currently 

withdrawn (mostly 

special designations).

May be some overlap 

with Greater SageGrouse habitat.

3,442,120 acres would be proposed for 

withdrawal from locatable mineral entry.

Alternatives B and C would propose a withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry in sage-grouse 

priority habitat1. Existing claims in sage-grouse 

priority habitat would be subject to validity exams.

117,370 acres would 

be proposed for 

withdrawal from 

locatable mineral entry.

Portions of sagegrouse core habitat 

would be withdrawn 

from mineral entry for 

the protection of 

sensitive resources

3,442,120 acres would 

be proposed for 

withdrawal from 

locatable mineral entry.

A withdrawal from 

mineral entry would be 

evaluated and 

considered based on 

risk to the sage-grouse 

and its habitat in core 

habitat areas from 

conflicting locatable 

mineral potential and 

development.

Operators could be 

requested to submit 

modifications to the 

accepted notice or 

approved plan of 

operations so that the 

operations minimally 

impact sage-grouse 

core area habitats.

Salable Minerals/Mineral 

Materials

274,860 acres would be 

closed to mineral 

material sales and 

permits.

Various areas closed to 

mineral material sales.

May be some overlap 

with Greater SageGrouse habitat.

5,000,400 acres would be closed to mineral 

material sales and permits.

Under Alternatives B and C, sage-grouse priority 

habitat would be closed to mineral material sales.

274,860 acres would 

be closed to mineral 

material sales and 

permits.

Sage-grouse core 

habitat areas would be 

open to mineral 

material exploration, 

sales, and free use 

274,860 acres would 

be closed to mineral 

material sales and 

permits.

In addition to 

Alternative A: All 

salable mineral 

activities within core 

habitat areas would be 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-187

Resource/Resource 

Use

Alternative A (No 

Action Alternative) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Alternative E 

(Preferred 

Alternative)

permits, except in 

areas that are 

unavailable due to the 

need to protect other 

resource values

considered, provided 

they can be completed 

in compliance within

surface occupancy, 

seasonal restrictions,

and disturbance and 

density stipulations 

analyzed through the 

DDCT process.

Summary of Impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse

from Hard Rock Mining

Alternatives B and C would be more protective to Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse habitat than Alternatives A, D 

and E. Effective mitigation for existing mining claims and mineral material sites is similar across all action alternatives.

See Chapter 4 for a complete description of impacts from locatable minerals on Greater Sage-Grouse.

Hunting

There is no resource program in an RMP or LRMP for addressing this threat to Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat.

Climate Change

There is no resource program in an RMP or LRMP for addressing this threat to Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. However, BLM Standards for Public Land 

Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management in Wyoming include provisions for altering grazing management practices in response to drought 

conditions. In addition, several programs have contingency plans for management during drought conditions

Contaminants

There are no actions in this LUP Amendment for addressing this threat to Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. Regulations applied to mineral development and 

required design features (Appendix B) include requirements and design features to prevent the potential threat of contaminants.

Table 2-6. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Federal Oil and Gas and Coalbed Natural Gas Wells and 

Associated Surface Disturbance Acres 

Analysis Area

Alternative A

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells)

Alternative B

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells)

Alternative C

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells)

Alternative D

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells)

Alternative E

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells)

O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG

Casper Field 

Office

Sage-grouse 

Core/Priority Areas 496 105 76 6 76 6 430 88 284 52

Disturbance Acres* 4,960 730 730 4,280 2,810
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-188 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Analysis Area

Alternative A

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells)

Alternative B

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells)

Alternative C

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells)

Alternative D

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells)

Alternative E

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells)

O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG

Sage-grouse General 

Habitat 563 403 564 409 441 374 562 408 550 406

Disturbance Acres* 5,340 5,370 4,360 5,350 5,260

Total Wells 1,059 508 639 415 517 380 992 496 834 458

Total Disturbance 

Acres*

10,300 6,100 5,090 9,640 8,070

Kemmerer

Field Office

Sage-grouse 

Core/Priority Areas 168 84 50 4 50 4 146 73 98 49

Disturbance Acres* 1,990 490 490 1,740 1,160

Sage-grouse General 

Habitat 534 200 546 206 454 112 545 206 545 206

Disturbance Acres* 5,310 5,430 4,210 5,420 5,420

Total Wells 702 285 595 210 504 116 691 279 642 255

Total Disturbance 

Acres*

7,300 5,920 4,700 7,160 6,580

Newcastle

Field Office

Sage-grouse 

Core/Priority Areas 67 11 10 0 10 0 57 9 43 4

Disturbance Acres* 550 80 80 460 340

Sage-grouse General 

Habitat 165 13 167 14 114 0 165 13 165 13

Disturbance Acres* 1,230 1,250 820 1,230 1,230

Sage-grouse 

Connectivity Habitat 71 0 73 0 42 0 63 0 68 0

Disturbance Acres* 400 400 240 360 380

Total Wells 303 23 250 14 166 0 285 21 276 17

Total Disturbance 

Acres*

2,180 1,650 1,060 1,590 1,620

Pinedale Field Sage-grouse 447 45 14 2 14 2 160 31 154 18
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-189

Analysis Area

Alternative A

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells)

Alternative B

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells)

Alternative C

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells)

Alternative D

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells)

Alternative E

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells)

O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG

Office Core/Priority Areas

Disturbance Acres* 5,610 180 180 2,090 1,950

Sage-grouse General 

Habitat 4,246 328 4,429 341 3,996 240 4,278 333 4,263 333

Disturbance Acres* 33,870 35,320 31,530 34,130 34,020

Total Wells 4,693 373 4,443 343 4,010 242 4,438 364 4,416 351

Total Disturbance 

Acres*

39,480 35,500 31,710 36,220 35,960

Rawlins Field 

Office

Sage-grouse 

Core/Priority Areas 405 546 172 153 172 153 352 481 253 357

Disturbance Acres* 6,120 2,210 2,210 5,360 3,910

Sage-grouse General 

Habitat 1,436 785 1,498 820 857 611 1,472 809 1,472 809

Disturbance Acres* 15,170 15,830 9,770 15,580 15,580

Total Wells 1,841 1,331 1,670 973 1,029 764 1,824 1,291 1,725 1,167

Total Disturbance 

Acres*

21,290 18,030 11,970 20,930 19,480

Rock Springs

Field Office

Sage-grouse 

Core/Priority Areas 2,188 37 1,101 2 1,101 2 1,977 31 1,598 12

Disturbance Acres* 25,600 12,790 12,790 23,110 16,460

Sage-grouse General 

Habitat 2,573 111 2,601 114 2,149 61 2,586 113 2,585 113

Disturbance Acres* 20,820 21,060 17,230 20,930 20,920

Total Wells 4,761 149 3,702 117 3,250 63 4,564 144 4,183 126

Total Disturbance 

Acres*

46,410 33,850 30,020 44,050 37,380

Bridger-Teton

National 

Sage-grouse 

Core/Priority Areas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-190 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Analysis Area

Alternative A

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells)

Alternative B

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells)

Alternative C

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells)

Alternative D

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells)

Alternative E

(BLM/Forest 

Service Wells)

O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG O&G CBNG

Forest Disturbance Acres* 0 0 0 0 0

Sage-grouse General 

Habitat 158 9 159 10 26 0 158 9 158 9

Disturbance Acres* 2,010 2,020 320 2,010 2,0104

Total Wells 158 9 159 10 26 0 158 9 158 9

Total Disturbance 

Acres*

2,013 2,019 319 2,014 2,01

Thunder 

Basin

National 

Grasslands

Sage-grouse 

Core/Priority Areas 44 11 2 0 2 0 38 9 26 7

Disturbance Acres* 410 19 19 360 260

Sage-grouse General 

Habitat 93 70 94 73 30 27 94 72 94 72

Disturbance Acres* 950 970 260 960 960

Total Wells 136 81 96 73 32 27 131 82 120 80

Total Disturbance 

Acres*

1,360 990 280 1,320 1,220

Medicine Bow

National 

Forest

Sage-grouse 

Core/Priority Areas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disturbance Acres* 0 0 0 0 0

Sage-grouse General 

Habitat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disturbance Acres* 0 0 0 0 0

Total Wells 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Disturbance 

Acres*

0 0 0 0 0

Total Wells 13,653 2,758 11,555 2,154 9,533 1,594 13,083 2,686 12,355 2,462

Total Disturbance Acres* 130,330 104,050 85,140 122,910 112,330

*Acreages are for short-term surface disturbance acres
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-191

2.7 COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Table 2-7 briefly summarizes the impacts of the actions proposed under each alternative, organized by resource or resource management program. 

A detailed discussion of the environmental consequences of the actions proposed under each alternative is presented in Chapter 4.

Table 2-7. Comparative Summary of Impacts 

No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Air Quality

NOx emissions could increase 

by 8,172 tons per year in 

2020.

NOx emissions could increase 

by 7,365 tons per year in 

2031.

NOx emissions could 

increase by 8,318 tons per 

year in 2020.

NOx emissions could 

increase by 4,430 tons per 

year in 2031.

NOx emissions could 

increase by 4,696 tons per 

year in 2020.

NOx emissions could 

increase by 4,068 tons per 

year in 2031.

NOx emissions could 

increase by 8,340 tons per 

year in 2020.

NOx emissions could 

increase by 7,061 tons per 

year in 2031.

NOx emissions could 

increase by 7,667 tons per 

year in 2020.

NOx emissions could 

increase by 5,182 tons per 

year in 2031.

Cultural Resources

Surface disturbance from oil 

and gas development, 

livestock grazing, recreation 

and travel management could

potentially damage 

undiscovered or 

undocumented cultural sites. 

Under this alternative, 871,780

acres would be closed to oil 

and gas development, 

potentially decreasing impacts 

to cultural resources in these 

areas.

Under this alternative, 285,930

acres would be managed as 

ROW exclusion areas and 

437,120 acres would be 

closed to wind development, 

potentially decreasing impacts 

to cultural resources in these 

areas.

Leasing of solid leasable 

minerals would be closed on 

234,230 acres, potentially 

As with Alternative A, 

surface disturbance from oil 

and gas development, 

livestock grazing, recreation 

and travel management 

could potentially damage 

undiscovered or 

undocumented cultural 

sites. 

An increase in the number 

of acres closed to oil and 

gas development 

(6,809,580 acres in 

Alternative B as compared 

to 871,780 acres in 

Alternative A) would 

potentially decrease 

disturbance, resulting in 

fewer impacts to cultural 

sites. 

Additional restrictions on 

other surface and subsurface activities, such as 

ROW exclusion areas 

As with Alternative A, surface 

disturbance from oil and gas 

development, livestock 

grazing, recreation and travel 

management could 

potentially damage 

undiscovered or 

undocumented cultural sites. 

An increase in the number of 

acres closed to oil and gas 

development (16,878,220

acres in Alternative C as 

compared to 871,780 acres 

in Alternative A) would 

potentially decrease 

disturbance, resulting in 

fewer impacts to cultural 

sites.

Additional restrictions on 

other surface and subsurface activities, such as 

ROW exclusion areas 

(11,531,340 acres) and areas 

closed to wind development 

As with Alternative A, surface 

disturbance from oil and gas 

development, livestock 

grazing, recreation and travel 

management could 

potentially damage 

undiscovered or 

undocumented cultural sites.

An increase in the number of 

acres closed to oil and gas 

development (964,860 acres

in Alternative D as compared 

to 871,780 acres in 

Alternative A) would 

potentially decrease 

disturbance, resulting in 

fewer impacts to cultural 

sites. 

Additional restrictions on 

other surface and subsurface activities, such as 

ROW exclusion areas 

(5,141,340acres) and areas 

closed to wind development 

As with Alternative A, surface 

disturbance from oil and gas 

development, livestock 

grazing, recreation and travel 

management could 

potentially damage 

undiscovered or 

undocumented cultural sites. 

The number of acres closed 

to oil and gas development, 

892,090 acres, would close 

more land to oil and gas 

development as compared to 

Alternative A. 

Additional restrictions on 

areas closed to wind 

development (5,002,520) 

would decrease the impacts 

to cultural resources when 

compared with Alternative A.

Impacts from ROW exclusion 

areas would be the same as 

those in Alternative A.

Impacts from solid leasable 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-192 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

decreasing impacts to cultural

resources in these areas.

(5,141,340 acres) and 

areas closed to wind 

development (5,000,400

acres) would decrease the 

impacts to cultural 

resources when compared 

with Alternative A.

An increase in the number 

of acres closed to solid 

leasable mineral 

development (5,000,400

acres as opposed to 

234,230 acres under 

Alternative A) would protect 

cultural resources within 

these additional areas.

(11,531,340 acres) would 

decrease the impacts to 

cultural resources when

compared with Alternative A.

An increase in the number of 

acres closed to solid leasable 

mineral development 

(5,000,400 acres as opposed 

to 234,230 acres) would 

protect cultural resources 

within these additional areas.

(5,000,400 acres) would 

decrease the impacts to 

cultural resources when 

compared with Alternative A.

Solid mineral leasing would 

be prohibited on 234,230

acres (Map 2-27), which is 

the same as Alternative A. 

Thus, impacts from solid 

mineral leasing would be 

similar to those described in 

Alternative A.

minerals would be the same 

as those described in 

Alternative A, with the same 

amount of acres being closed 

(Map 2-28).

Forestry

Impacts to forestry and 

forestry resources would 

mostly occur from surface 

disturbing activities. Surface 

disturbing activities could 

reduce forest/woodland health 

through vegetation removal, 

soil compaction, soil removal, 

fractured vegetation 

communities, modified plant 

community structure and 

diversity, increased soil 

erosion, and increased surface 

runoff. This reduction in 

forest/woodland health could 

lead to an increase in 

invasive/noxious species 

establishment/proliferation and 

a reduction in timber 

production. 

The majority of surface 

disturbing activities within the 

planning area would be from 

minerals development and 

Impacts to forestry from 

surface disturbing activities 

could be reduced compared 

to Alternative A, as shortterm surface disturbances 

from fluid minerals 

development would be 

reduced to 104,050 acres 

and long-term surface 

disturbance acres to 33,540

acres. Surface disturbing 

impacts from oil, gas, and 

CBNG wells could be 

reduced compared to 

Alternative A, as the 

number of wells would be 

reduced to 11,555 oil and 

gas wells and 2,154 CBNG 

wells. These reductions 

could reduce the total acres 

developed for fluid minerals 

within forest/woodland 

habitat thus decreasing 

forestry/woodland 

vegetation, timber, and 

Impacts to forestry from 

surface disturbing activities 

could be reduced compared 

to Alternative A, as shortterm surface disturbances 

from fluid minerals 

development would be 

reduced to 85,140 acres and 

long-term surface 

disturbances would be 

reduced to 27,030 acres. 

These disturbances would be 

reduced compared to 

Alternative A, as fluid mineral 

well development would be 

reduced to 9,533 oil and gas 

wells and 1,594 CBNG wells. 

The reduction in fluid mineral 

wells could reduce the total 

acres in forest/woodland 

habitat developed for fluid 

mineral activities which would 

maintain habitat functions 

and health as well as 

maintain timber production in 

Impacts to forestry from 

surface disturbing activities 

would be the same as 

Alternative A, except the 

level of intensity would be 

reduced as the total shortterm surface disturbance 

acres from fluid minerals 

development would be 

reduced to 122,910 acres 

and 37,720 long-term surface 

disturbance areas. This 

reduction in surface 

disturbance acres would help 

maintain ecological 

processes important to 

forest/woodland health and 

timber production. The 

reduction in impacts to 

forestry resources would 

mostly be due to the 

reduction of fluid mineral 

wells, with oil and gas wells

being reduced to 13,083 

wells and CBNG reduced to 

Impacts from fluid mineral 

activities would be the same 

as Alternative A, except the 

level of intensity would be 

different as the projected well 

development would be 

reduced to 12,355 oil and 

gas wells and 2,462 CBNG 

wells. This reduction in wells 

would help maintain 

forest/woodland ecological 

functions and maintain timber 

production. Compared to 

Alternative A, surface 

disturbing activities from fluid 

minerals development would 

be reduced which would 

reduce short-term surface 

disturbance to 112,330 acres 

and long-term surface 

disturbances to 35,430 acres. 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-193

No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

associated infrastructure, both 

of which typically are situated 

in non-forested to lightly 

forested areas.

Minerals development and 

surface disturbing activities 

that do occur in 

woodland/forest areas are 

more likely to occur in areas 

that have high potential for 

coalbed natural gas (CBNG). 

Surface disturbing impacts to 

forestry resources from fluid 

minerals development are 

expected to occur across 

130,330 acres in the shortterm and 39,050 acres in the 

long-term under Alternative A, 

most of which would be 

outside timber production and 

harvest areas. 

associated ecological 

processes which are 

important to overall forest 

health.

these areas. 2,686 wells. Reduction in 

wells could also reduce 

associated surface 

disturbances such as the 

construction of roads and 

utilities which could reduce 

forest/woodland vegetation 

removal compared to 

Alternative A. 

Lands and Realty

Impacts on lands and realty 

management would result 

from placing restrictions on the 

location of ROWs and land 

tenure adjustments.

Prohibiting or restricting 

surface disturbing activities 

and managing lands as ROW 

exclusion and avoidance 

areas could result in the 

relocation or redesign of 

proposed ROWs or could 

preclude the development of 

some ROWs that could not be 

effectively mitigated or located 

in other areas. Land use 

restrictions that result in the 

relocation or redesign of 

proposed ROWs would 

increase management efforts 

Impacts on lands and realty 

management would be 

similar to those identified 

under Alternative A, except 

the impacts would be more 

extensive with an increase 

in ROW exclusion and 

avoidance areas.

ROW exclusion and 

avoidance areas would 

include 5,141,340 and

6,390,010 acres, 

respectively.

Impacts on lands and realty 

management would be 

similar to those identified 

under Alternative A, except 

the impacts would be more 

extensive with an increase in 

ROW exclusion areas.

ROW exclusion and 

avoidance areas would 

include 11,531,340 and 0 

acres, respectively.

Impacts on lands and realty 

management would be 

similar to those identified 

under Alternative A, except 

the impacts would be more 

extensive with an increase in 

ROW exclusion areas.

ROW exclusion and 

avoidance areas would 

include 5,141,340 and

1,211,030 acres, 

respectively.

Impacts on lands and realty 

management would be 

similar to those identified 

under Alternative A, except 

the impacts would be more 

extensive with an increase in 

ROW avoidance areas and 

areas in which surface 

disturbing activities are 

prohibited.

ROW exclusion and 

avoidance areas would 

include 285,930 and

6,065,960 acres, 

respectively.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-194 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

and costs related to proposals 

submitted by ROW applicants.

ROW exclusion and avoidance 

areas would include 285,930

and 2,460,340 acres, 

respectively.

Livestock Grazing

Impacts to livestock grazing 

would occur from surfacedisturbing and development 

activities (e.g., mineral 

development, ROW 

development) that remove or 

degrade forage resources. 

The impacts would be greatest 

under this alternative because 

of fewer restrictions on newly 

permitted surface disturbing 

activities within the planning 

area.

Managing 285,930 acres as 

ROW exclusion areas, 

871,780 acres as unavailable 

for oil and gas leasing, 40,980

acres as NSO areas, and 

68,550 acres in which surface 

disturbing activities are 

prohibited would reduce 

surface disturbances and help 

to maintain forage resources, 

but to a lesser extent than the 

other alternatives.

Grazing management would 

be adjusted on all allotments 

not meeting the Wyoming 

Standards for Healthy 

Rangelands on BLMadministered lands, and to 

those not meeting LRMP 

standards and guidelines on 

Forest Service-administered 

Impacts to livestock grazing 

would occur from surfacedisturbing and development 

activities (e.g., mineral 

development, ROW 

development) that remove 

or degrade forage 

resources. 

Managing 5,141,340 acres 

as ROW exclusion areas, 

6,809,580 acres as 

unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing, and 2,082,140

acres as NSO areas would 

reduce surface 

disturbances and help to 

maintain forage resources.

Allotments within sagegrouse priority habitat not 

meeting the Wyoming 

Standards for Healthy 

Rangelands due, in part, to

livestock grazing would 

require a 20-30% forage 

allocation for livestock, 

thereby decreasing the 

forage available for grazing.

In addition, retiring specific 

allotments and/or permits 

could occur and reduce the 

number of acres available 

for livestock grazing.

Impacts to livestock grazing 

would occur from surfacedisturbing and development 

activities (e.g., mineral 

development, ROW 

development) that remove or 

degrade forage resources. 

Managing 11,531,340 acres 

as ROW exclusion areas, 

16,878,220 acres as 

unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing, and 2,082,140 acres 

as NSO areas, would reduce 

surface disturbances and 

help to maintain forage 

resources. Because such 

restrictions are the most 

extensive under this 

alternative, impacts to 

livestock grazing associated 

with surface disturbances 

would be the least intensive.

Livestock grazing would be 

entirely prohibited within 

sage-grouse priority habitat 

(approximately 5 million 

acres), thereby significantly 

reducing the number of acres 

available for livestock 

grazing.

Impacts to livestock grazing 

would occur from surfacedisturbing and development 

activities (e.g., mineral 

development, ROW 

development) that remove or 

degrade forage resources. 

Managing 5,141,340 acres 

as ROW exclusion areas and 

964,860 acres as unavailable 

for oil and gas leasing would 

reduce surface disturbances 

and help to maintain forage 

resources.

Grazing management would 

be adjusted on all allotments 

not meeting the Wyoming 

Standards for Healthy 

Rangelands on BLMadministered lands, and to 

those not meeting LRMP

standards and guidelines on 

Forest Service-administered 

lands, for reasons 

attributable to grazing. These 

management restrictions 

could reduce AUM utilization 

and increase the cost of 

livestock operations.

Impacts to livestock grazing 

would occur from surfacedisturbing and development 

activities (e.g., mineral 

development, ROW 

development) that remove or 

degrade forage resources. 

Managing 285,930 acres as 

ROW exclusion areas, 

892,090 acres as unavailable 

for oil and gas leasing, 

689,300 acres as NSO 

areas, and 304,970 acres in 

which surface disturbing 

activities are prohibited would 

reduce surface disturbances 

and help to maintain forage 

resources.

Grazing management would 

be adjusted on all allotments 

not meeting the Wyoming 

Standards for Healthy 

Rangelands on BLMadministered lands, and to 

those not meeting LRMP 

standards and guidelines on 

Forest Service-administered 

lands, for reasons 

attributable to grazing. These 

management restrictions 

could reduce AUM utilization 

and increase the cost of 

livestock operations.
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-195

No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

lands, for reasons attributable 

to grazing. These 

management restrictions could 

reduce AUM utilization and 

increase the cost of livestock 

operations.

Minerals and Energy

Fluid Leasable Minerals

Closing 871,780 acres, NSO 

on 40,980 acres and CSU on 

5,015,210 acres within sagegrouse core and general 

habitat (Map 2-4) to fluid 

mineral development would 

restrict the area in which 

development could occur, 

would increase the complexity 

of mineral operations, slow 

down the production of fluid 

minerals, and ultimately 

reduce the number of mineral 

operations. 

Timing and distance limitations 

within sage-grouse core and 

general habitat would further 

shorten the season for mineral 

development and delay 

access to mineral resources.

Under Alternative A, there 

would be 13,653 wells 

projected over the life of the 

plan.

Closing 6,809,580 acres

within sage-grouse priority 

habitat to fluid mineral 

development and applying 

NSO stipulations, as COAs, 

to valid existing leases on 

2,082,140 acres (Map 2-5)

would decrease the number 

of mineral operations 

compared to Alternative A. 

Timing and distance 

limitations would be 

increased to include a 4-

mile NSO buffer around 

leks with a cap on surface 

disturbance of 1 

disturbance per section and 

no more than 3% total 

surface disturbance, which

would further reduce and 

limit mineral activity 

compared to Alternative A. 

Under Alternative B, the 

impacts above would 

reduce the number of wells 

projected over the life of the 

plan to 11,555.

Closing all 16,878,220 acres 

of sage-grouse priority and 

general habitat to fluid 

mineral development and 

applying NSO stipulations, as 

COAs, to valid existing 

leases on 2,082,140 acres 

(Map 2-6) would decrease 

the number of mineral 

operations compared to 

Alternative A. 

Timing and distance 

limitations would be similar to 

Alternative B, but would 

include disruptive activities 

as well, which would further 

reduce and limit mineral 

activity compared to 

Alternative A.

Under Alternative C, the 

impacts above would reduce 

the number of wells projected 

over the life of the plan to 

9,533.

Closing 964,860 acres within 

sage-grouse core and 

general habitat to fluid 

mineral development and 

CSU on 2,117,990 acres 

within sage-grouse core and 

general habitat (Map 2-7)

would decrease the number 

of mineral operations 

compared to Alternative A. 

Timing and density limitations 

of 3 locations per 640 acres 

and a 9% disturbance cap 

would reduce and limit

mineral development

compared to Alternative A.

Under Alternative D, the 

impacts above would reduce 

the number of wells projected 

over the life of the plan to 

13,083.

Closing 892,090 acres, NSO 

on 689,300 acres and CSU 

on 6,146,570 acres within 

sage-grouse core and 

general habitat (Map 2-8) to 

fluid mineral development 

would decrease the number 

of mineral operations 

compared to Alternative A. 

Timing and distance 

limitations would be 

increased to include 

prohibiting surface 

occupancy and disruptive 

activities within 0.6 miles of 

occupied leks and density 

limitations of 1 location per 

640 acres and a 5%

disturbance cap would 

reduce and limit mineral 

activity compared to 

Alternative A.

Under Alternative E, the 

impacts above would reduce 

the number of wells projected 

over the life of the plan to 

12,355.

Solid Leasable Minerals

Consideration of solid mineral 

leasing in most of the planning 

area would allow for the 

Closing sage-grouse priority 

areas to coal exploration 

would decrease the area 

available for future 

Impacts would be the same 

as under Alternative B 

(Map 2-26).

Impacts would be the same 

as under Alternative A 

(Map 2-27).

Impacts would be the same 

as under Alternative A 

(Map 2-28).
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-196 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

development of coal.

Consideration of non-energy 

leasable minerals would allow 

for the development of sodium 

(trona), phosphates, and tar 

sands. 

Approximately 234,230 acres 

would be closed to solid 

mineral leasing, which would 

eliminate this type of mineral 

development over 3% of sagegrouse core and general 

habitat (Map 2-24).

development of coal 

compared to Alternative A.

Closing sage-grouse priority 

areas to non-energy 

leasable minerals would 

reduce the amount of area 

available for mineral 

development.

Approximately 5,000,400

acres would be closed to 

solid mineral leasing, which 

would eliminate this type of 

mineral development over 

43% of sage-grouse priority 

and general habitat (Map 2-

25).

Locatable Minerals

Withdrawing or pursuing 

withdrawal on approximately 

117,370 acres from mineral 

entry would restrict the ability 

to develop locatable minerals 

in those areas (Map 2-19).

Withdrawing or pursuing 

withdrawal on all priority 

sage-grouse habitat 

(approximately 3,442,120

acres) from mineral entry 

would restrict the ability to 

develop locatable minerals 

on more areas than 

Alternative A (Map 2-20).

Impacts would be the same 

as under Alternative B 

(Map 2-21).

Impacts would be the same 

as under Alternative A 

(Map 2-22).

Impacts would be the same 

as under Alternative B 

(Map 2-23).

Saleable Minerals

Saleable mineral 

development, including 

mineral material exploration, 

sales, and free use permits 

(Map 2-14) would be closed 

on 274,860 acres (about 8% of 

sage-grouse core and general 

habitat).

Saleable mineral 

development, including 

mineral material 

exploration, sales, and free 

use permits (Map 2-15)

would be closed on 

5,000,400 acres (all sagegrouse priority habitat), 

constituting about 43% of 

sage-grouse priority and 

general habitat, nearly 5 

times the closures as 

Alternative A.

Impacts would be the same 

as under Alternative B 

(Map 2-16).

Saleable mineral 

development, including 

mineral material exploration, 

sales, and free use permits 

(Map 2-17) would be closed 

on 274,860 acres.

Impacts would be the same 

as under Alternative D

(Map 2-18).
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-197

No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Wind Energy

Wind energy development 

would be allowed in most 

places across the planning 

area without specific 

restrictions (Map 2-29). 

437,120 acres would be 

closed to wind development 

and 3,888,930 acres would 

have restrictions. A total of 

27,970 wind turbines (2 MW) 

are projected to be developed 

through 2020.

Closing sage-grouse priority 

habitat to wind energy 

(5,000,400 acres) and 

limiting wind energy in 

general habitat areas 

(6,530,940 acres) would 

reduce projected 

development to 2,821 

turbines (Map 2-30)

compared to Alternative A.

Closing sage-grouse priority 

and general habitat to wind 

energy development 

(11,531,340 acres) would 

reduce projected 

development to 2,821 

turbines, the same as under 

Alternative B, but limiting 

areas where they could be 

built more than Alternative B 

(Map 2-31). 

Closing sage-grouse core

habitat to wind energy 

(5,000,400 acres) and 

limiting wind energy in 

general habitat areas 

(501,830 acres) would 

reduce projected 

development to 21,863 

turbines (Map 2-32)

compared to Alternative A.

Closing sage-grouse core

habitat to wind energy 

(5,002,520 acres) and 

limiting wind energy in 

general habitat areas 

(6,528,810 acres) would 

reduce projected 

development to 2,821 

turbines (Map 2-33), the 

same number as 

Alternative B, but with slightly 

more closed areas and fewer 

limited areas.

Paleontology

Surface disturbance from oil 

and gas development, 

livestock grazing, recreation 

and travel management would 

cause potential damage to 

undiscovered or 

undocumented paleontological 

resources. Surface disturbing 

activities would be prohibited 

on 68,550 acres and restricted 

on 437,680 acres, which could

protect paleontological 

resources within these areas.

Under this alternative, 

871,780acres would be closed 

to oil and gas development, 

potentially decreasing impacts 

to paleontological resources in 

these areas.

Leasing of solid leasable 

minerals would be closed on

234,230 acres, potentially 

decreasing impacts to 

paleontological resources in 

these areas.

As with Alternative A, 

surface disturbance from oil 

and gas development, 

livestock grazing, recreation 

and travel management 

would cause potential 

damage to undiscovered or 

undocumented 

paleontological resources.

Closing 6,809,580 acres to 

oil and gas development 

would greatly expand the 

protection of paleontological 

resources within these 

areas as compared to 

871,780 acres that would 

be closed to oil and gas 

development in 

Alternative A. 

Leasing of solid leasable 

minerals would be closed 

on 5,000,400 acres, greatly 

expanding the area 

protected from mineral 

development.

As with Alternative A, surface 

disturbance from oil and gas 

development, livestock 

grazing, recreation and travel 

management would cause 

potential damage to 

undiscovered or 

undocumented 

paleontological resources. 

A significant increase in the 

number of acres closed to oil 

and gas development 

(16,878,220 acres) could

potentially decrease 

disturbance, resulting in 

fewer impacts to 

paleontological resources as 

compared to Alternative A.

Leasing of solid leasable 

minerals would be closed on 

5,000,400 acres, greatly 

expanding the area protected 

from mineral development.

Additional restrictions on 

other surface and subAs with Alternative A, surface 

disturbance from oil and gas 

development, livestock 

grazing, recreation and travel 

management would cause 

potential damage to 

undiscovered or 

undocumented 

paleontological resources. 

Impacts from oil and gas 

development would be 

similar to those in 

Alternative A with respect to 

the amount of acres closed to 

oil and gas development.

However, the number of 

acres closed to oil and gas 

development would be 

slightly increased (964,860

acres in Alternative D, as 

opposed to 871,780 acres in 

Alternative A).

Solid mineral leasing would 

be closed on 234,230 acres 

(Map 2-27), which is the 

same as Alternative A. 

As with Alternative A, surface 

disturbance from oil and gas 

development, livestock 

grazing, recreation and travel 

management would cause 

potential damage to 

undiscovered or 

undocumented 

paleontological resources. 

However, the number of 

acres on which surface 

disturbance is prohibited 

would increase (68,550 acres 

in Alternative A as opposed 

to 304,970 acres in 

Alternative E). The number of 

acres where surface 

disturbance is restricted 

would decrease when 

compared to Alternative A 

(437,680 acres in A, as 

opposed to 21,950 acres in 

E).

Closing 892,090 acres to oil 

and gas development would 

expand the protection of 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-198 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Under this alternative, 285,930

acres would be managed as 

ROW exclusion areas and 

437,120 acres would be 

closed to wind development, 

potentially decreasing impacts 

to paleontological resources in 

these areas.

Additional restrictions on

surface and sub-surface 

disturbing activities, such as 

ROW exclusion areas

(5,141,340 acres) and

areas closed to wind 

development (5,000,400

acres) are all greatly 

expanded as compared with 

Alternative A.

surface activities, such as 

ROW exclusion areas 

(11,531,340 acres) and areas 

closed to wind energy 

(11,531,340acres) would 

decrease the impacts to 

paleontological resources as 

compared with Alternative A.

Impacts from solid mineral 

leasing would be similar to 

those described in 

Alternative A. 

Additional restrictions on 

other surface and subsurface activities, such as 

ROW exclusion areas 

(5,141,340 acres) and areas 

closed to wind energy 

(5,000,400) would decrease 

the impacts to 

paleontological resources as 

compared with Alternative A.

paleontological resources 

within these areas as 

compared to 871,780 acres 

that would be closed to oil 

and gas development in 

Alternative A.

Acres for other surface and 

sub-surface disturbing 

activities, such as areas 

closed to wind energy 

(5,002,520 acres) are greatly 

expanded when compared 

with Alternative A, potentially 

protecting paleontological 

resources in these areas.

Impacts from ROW exclusion 

areas (285,930 acres) would 

be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts from solid leasable 

minerals to paleontological 

resources would be the same 

as those described in 

Alternative A, with the same 

amount of acres being closed 

to solid leasable mineral 

development (Map 2-28).

Recreation Resources

Allowing recreation use either 

through permits or casual use 

will continue in most areas. 

Popular recreation activities in 

the planning area include OHV 

use, hunting, camping, hiking, 

and scenic touring, among 

others. 

Measures for the protection 

of sage-grouse in priority 

and general habitat could 

reduce some permit-based 

recreation opportunities

compared to Alternative A. 

Conversely, opportunities 

for primitive and unconfined 

recreation could be 

enhanced indirectly through 

actions that reduce or 

remove surface disturbing 

and disruptive activities.

This would occur primarily 

Impacts to permitted 

recreation opportunities 

would be similar to 

Alternative B, but expanded 

to include all non-motorized 

recreation, seasonally, within 

4 miles of active leks. 

Impacts to other types of 

recreation would be the same 

as under Alternative B, 

except that impacts would be 

extended to include sagegrouse general habitat, 

where there would be 

Impacts to permitted 

recreation opportunities 

would be similar to 

Alternative A, although more 

large-group permitted 

activities could be denied.

Impacts would be roughly the 

same as under Alternative D.
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-199

No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

in sage-grouse priority 

habitat.

additional removal of surface 

disturbing and disruptive 

activities.

Socioeconomics

Continued management within 

the planning area would be 

expected to perpetuate trends 

that are already occurring 

within the economic study 

area. The quantified economic 

impacts across the entire 

planning area from 2013–2020 

(present value) in 2011 dollars 

were estimated at $63.9 billion 

(B) of total economic output, 

$15.6B of total labor earnings, 

and $4.1B of local and state 

revenues. Approximately 

37,700 jobs would be 

supported in 2020. Social 

impacts from continuation of 

current trends would occur in 

this alternative. These impacts 

would include stresses on 

community resources and 

community cohesion caused 

by high rates of resource 

development in some areas. In 

addition, wildlife/ecosystem 

conservation stakeholders 

would find this alternative 

highly unsatisfactory; mineral 

development, renewable 

energy development, and 

livestock grazing stakeholders 

would generally find this 

alternative to be most 

conducive to their interests 

and values; and recreation 

stakeholders would have 

mixed views.

Quantified economic 

impacts across the entire 

planning area from 2013–

2020 (present value) in 

2011 dollars were estimated 

at $59.1B of total economic 

output, $13.9B of total labor 

earnings, and $3.9B of local 

and state revenues. 

Approximately 33,600 jobs 

would be supported in 

2020. A number of actions 

may increase costs to 

operators or reduce use 

levels relative to 

Alternative A in ways that 

could not be quantified, and 

thereby affect (increase or 

decrease in various 

instances) economic activity 

in ways that could not be 

estimated. Social impacts 

from stresses on community 

resources and community 

cohesion caused by high 

rates of resource 

development would be 

reduced relative to 

Alternative A. In addition, 

wildlife/ecosystem 

conservation stakeholders 

would find this alternative 

more favorable than 

Alternative A; mineral 

development, renewable 

energy development, and 

livestock grazing 

stakeholders could find this 

Quantified economic impacts 

across the entire planning 

area from 2013–2020 

(present value) in 2011 

dollars were estimated at 

$49.9B of total economic 

output, $11.7B of total labor 

earnings, and $3.3B of local 

and state revenues. 

Approximately 27,900 jobs 

would be supported in 2020. 

Additional impacts relative to 

Alternative A, from actions 

that could not be quantified, 

would occur and would be 

most pronounced in this 

alternative. Social impacts 

from stresses on community 

resources and community 

cohesion caused by high 

rates of resource 

development would be most 

reduced by this alternative 

relative to Alternative A. In 

addition, wildlife / ecosystem 

conservation stakeholders 

would find this alternative 

most favorable of all the 

alternatives; mineral 

development and livestock 

grazing stakeholders would 

find this alternative least 

favorable; and renewable 

energy and recreation 

stakeholders could view this 

alternative very similarly to 

Alternative B.

Quantified economic impacts 

across the entire planning 

area from 2013–2020 

(present value) in 2011 

dollars were estimated at 

$62B of total economic 

output, $15.1B of total labor 

earnings, and $4.0B of local 

and state revenues. 

Approximately 35,400 jobs 

would be supported in 2020. 

Additional impacts relative to 

Alternative A, from actions 

that could not be quantified, 

would occur and would be 

less pronounced in this 

alternative than Alternatives 

B and C. Social impacts from 

stresses on community 

resources and community 

cohesion caused by high 

rates of resource 

development would be 

similar to Alternative A. In 

addition, wildlife / ecosystem 

conservation stakeholders 

would find this alternative 

unsatisfactory; mineral 

development stakeholders 

would find it favorable; 

renewable energy 

stakeholders would find it 

less favorable than 

Alternative A but more 

favorable than the other 

alternatives; and livestock 

grazing stakeholders and 

recreation stakeholders 

Quantified economic impacts 

across the entire planning 

area from 2013–2020 

(present value) in 2011 

dollars were estimated at 

$60.1B of total economic 

output, $14.3B of total labor 

earnings, and $3.9B of local 

and state revenues. 

Approximately 34,600 jobs 

would be supported in 2020. 

Additional impacts relative to 

Alternative A, from actions 

that could not be quantified, 

would occur and would be 

less pronounced in this 

alternative than Alternatives 

B and C. Social impacts from 

stresses on community 

resources and community 

cohesion caused by high 

rates of resource 

development may be 

somewhat reduced relative to 

Alternative A. In addition, 

wildlife/ecosystem 

conservation stakeholders 

would find this alternative 

more favorable than 

Alternative A or D, but less 

favorable than Alternative B 

or C; mineral development 

stakeholders could find it less 

favorable than Alternatives A 

and D, and more favorable 

than Alternatives B and C; 

renewable energy 

stakeholders would view it 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-200 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

alternative to be less 

favorable; and recreation 

stakeholders could have 

mixed views.

generally would view it 

similarly to Alternative A. 

similarly to Alternative B; 

livestock grazing 

stakeholders would view it 

somewhat similarly to 

Alternatives A and D and find 

it more favorable than 

Alternatives B and C; and 

recreation stakeholders could 

have mixed views.

Soils

Soil resources would be 

impacted by actions that 

remove vegetation and expose 

the surface to accelerated 

wind and water erosion. The 

impacts would be greatest 

under this alternative because 

of fewer restrictions on newly 

permitted surface disturbing 

activities within the planning 

area.

Managing 285,930 acres as 

ROW exclusion areas, 

871,780 acres as unavailable 

for oil and gas leasing, 40,980

acres as NSO areas, and 

68,550 acres in which surface 

disturbing activities are 

prohibited would reduce 

surface disturbances and help 

to reduce soil erosion and 

maintain soil resources.

Soil resources would be 

impacted by actions that 

remove vegetation and 

expose the surface to 

accelerated wind and water 

erosion.

Managing 5,141,340 acres 

as ROW exclusion areas, 

6,809,580 acres as 

unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing, and 2,082,140

acres as NSO areas would 

reduce surface 

disturbances and help to 

reduce soil erosion and 

maintain soil resources.

Soil resources would be 

impacted by actions that 

remove vegetation and 

expose the surface to 

accelerated wind and water 

erosion.

Managing 11,531,340 acres 

as ROW exclusion areas, 

16,878,220 acres as 

unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing, and 2,082,140 acres 

as NSO areas would reduce 

surface disturbances and 

help to reduce soil erosion 

and maintain soil resources.

Because such restrictions are 

the most extensive under this 

alternative, impacts to soil

resources would be the least 

intensive.

Soil resources would be 

impacted by actions that 

remove vegetation and 

expose the surface to 

accelerated wind and water 

erosion.

Managing 5,141,340 acres 

as ROW exclusion areas and 

964,860 acres as unavailable 

for oil and gas leasing would 

reduce surface disturbances 

and help to reduce soil 

erosion and maintain soil 

resources.

Soil resources would be 

impacted by actions that 

remove vegetation and 

expose the surface to 

accelerated wind and water 

erosion.

Managing 285,930 acres as 

ROW exclusion areas, 

892,090 acres as unavailable 

for oil and gas leasing, 

689,300 acres as NSO 

areas, and 304,970 acres in 

which surface disturbing 

activities are prohibited would 

reduce surface disturbances 

and help to reduce soil 

erosion and maintain soil 

resources.

Special Designations and Management Areas

SD/MAs would be managed to 

protect the individual values 

for which they are designated. 

Restrictions on surface 

disturbance would indirectly 

affect SD/MAs by further 

protecting values such as 

Designating all sage-grouse

priority habitat areas as a 

sage-grouse conservation 

ACEC would greatly 

increase the area for which 

special values would be 

established and protected

Designating all sage-grouse

priority habitat areas and 

Audubon Important Bird 

Areas as a sage-grouse 

conservation ACEC would 

greatly increase the area for 

which special values would 

Impacts would be similar to 

Alternative A, except more 

area would be protected from 

surface disturbance.

Impacts would be the same 

as under Alternative D.
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-201

No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

wilderness, special status 

species, cultural resources, 

recreation opportunities, etc.

compared to Alternative A. 

Adding 5,000,402 acres as 

SD/MAs would be a 

significant increase over 

Alternative A (Map 2-34).

be established and protected

compared to Alternative A. 

Adding 6,398,221 acres as 

SD/MAs would be a 

significant increase over 

Alternative A (Map 2-35).

Special Status Species and Sage-grouse

Impacts to special status 

species habitat would result 

from surface disturbing 

activities, primarily renewable 

and non-renewable energy 

development and associated 

infrastructure (pipelines, power 

lines, and roads). Estimated 

initial surface disturbance from 

oil, gas, and CBNG is 130,330

acres. Additional surface 

disturbing activities from wind 

energy, pipelines, power lines, 

roads, and mineral 

development could impact 

special status species habitat 

through loss, alteration, and 

fragmentation of habitats and 

displacement of wildlife. 

Continued livestock grazing 

practices could reach 

Wyoming Standards for 

Rangeland Health or the 

Forest Service equivalent. 

Lek buffers and other existing 

restrictions would protect 

lands, especially sagebrush 

habitat, from surface 

disturbing activities, habitat 

loss, and fragmentation. 

Greater Sage-Grouse:

In addition to the impacts 

described above, the current 

management could continue in 

Under Alternative B, 

impacts from surface 

disturbing activities are 

lower than all alternatives 

except for Alternative C. 

Management would close 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority habitat to oil, gas, 

and CBNG leasing, wind 

energy, as well as other 

minerals. Estimated initial 

surface disturbance from 

oil, gas, and CBNG is 

104,050 acres. 

Additional management for 

livestock grazing could 

allow for greater 

achievement of Wyoming 

Standards for Rangeland 

Health or the Forest Service

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 sage-grouse priority 

habitat would protect more 

land, especially sagebrush 

habitat, from surface 

disturbing activities, habitat 

Impacts from surface 

disturbing activities are the 

lowest under Alternative C. 

Management would close 

Greater Sage-Grouse priority 

and general habitat to oil, 

gas, CBNG leasing, and wind 

energy; and would close 

priority habitat to other 

minerals. Estimated initial 

surface disturbance from oil, 

gas, and CBNG is 85,140

acres. 

Closing priority habitat to 

livestock grazing could allow 

for improved habitat and 

ample forage for wildlife, 

improved water quality for 

fisheries, and protection of 

special status plants from 

trampling, overgrazing, and 

soil loss. 

Larger lek buffers and 

restrictions to the density of 

disturbance for surface 

disturbing activities to protect 

sage-grouse habitat would 

protect more land, especially 

sagebrush habitat, from 

surface disturbing activities, 

habitat loss, and 

fragmentation.

Overall, Alternative C would 

provide the greatest 

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 

sage-grouse habitat. 

Estimated initial surface 

disturbance from oil, gas, and 

CBNG is 122,910 acres. 

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 special 

status wildlife.

Lek buffers, similar to 

Alternative A and other 

restrictions would protect 

lands, especially sagebrush 

habitat, from surface 

disturbing activities, habitat 

loss, and fragmentation.

Greater Sage-Grouse:

In addition to the impacts 

described above, the 

proposed lek buffers are 

insufficient to provide Greater 

Sage-Grouse undisturbed 

habitat and prevent habitat 

fragmentation, although 

Overall, impacts to special 

status species habitat from 

Alternative E would be similar 

to Alternative A although 

there would be greater 

protection to sage-grouse 

core habitat. Estimated initial 

surface disturbance from oil, 

gas, and CBNG is 112,330

acres. All core Greater SageGrouse habitat would be 

closed to wind development, 

protecting more habitat than 

Alternative A from loss, 

alteration, and fragmentation 

of habitat and displacement 

of special status wildlife. 

Management for livestock 

grazing could allow for 

achievement of Wyoming 

Standards for Rangeland 

Health or the Forest Service

equivalent, and provide 

improved habitat for special 

status species, especially 

those that inhabit riparian 

and wetland areas.

Lek buffers larger than 

Alternative A and other 

restrictions would protect 

lands, especially sagebrush 

habitat, from surface 

disturbing activities, habitat 

loss, and fragmentation. 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-202 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

habitat loss, habitat 

fragmentation, and human 

disturbance and declines of 

sage-grouse are likely to 

progress.

loss, and fragmentation.

Greater Sage-Grouse:

Alternative B would reduce

surface disturbance and 

disruptive activities in 

priority sage-grouse habitat. 

The protection of priority 

sagebrush habitat could 

provide Greater SageGrouse the undisturbed, 

contiguous habitat 

necessary for the species to 

maintain or improve 

population numbers.

protection of sagebrush 

habitat among all the 

alternatives.

Greater Sage-Grouse:

Alternative C would reduce

surface disturbance and 

disruptive activities in priority 

sage-grouse habitat, and in 

some cases general habitat 

(oil, gas, CBNG, ROWs, 

wind). The protection of 

priority and general 

sagebrush habitat could 

provide Greater SageGrouse the largest area of 

undisturbed, contiguous 

habitat necessary for the 

species to maintain or 

improve population numbers.

restrictions on density of 

disturbance could allow for 

some protection of 

contiguous habitat. Other 

management could provide 

protection of sage-grouse 

core habitat from wind 

development, by reducing 

habitat loss, fragmentation, 

and direct impacts from wind 

turbines and overhead 

structures. 

Greater Sage-Grouse:

In addition to the impacts 

described above, the 

proposed lek buffers are 

sufficient to provide Greater

Sage-Grouse undisturbed 

habitat and prevent habitat 

fragmentation. Other 

management could provide 

protection of sage-grouse 

core habitat from wind 

development, by reducing 

habitat loss, fragmentation, 

and direct impacts from wind 

turbines and overhead 

structures.

Transportation and Access Management

Under this alternative, areas 

where surface disturbing 

activities are prohibited 

(including buffer areas around 

sage-grouse leks, nesting 

areas, and other sensitive 

areas) would limit travel and 

access to designated roads 

and trails in these areas 

(Map 2-1). Surface disturbing 

activities under this alternative 

are prohibited on 68,550 acres 

and restricted on 437,680

acres. 

The development of roads and 

transportation systems 

required for oil, gas and 

mineral development would 

increase travel and access in 

those areas. In addition, areas 

closed to oil and gas 

The development of roads 

and transportation systems 

required for oil, gas, and 

mineral development would 

increase travel and access 

in those areas. Areas 

closed to oil and gas 

development (6,809,580

acres), mineral materials 

(5,000,400 acres), locatable 

minerals (1,560,050 acres),

and solid leasable minerals 

(5,000,400 acres), could 

limit or restrict travel and 

access in those areas. 

Travel in these areas would 

be limited to existing roads 

and trails. Compared with 

Alternative A, the number of 

acres closed to minerals 

activities is much larger, 

The development of roads 

and transportation systems 

required for oil, gas and 

mineral development would 

increase travel and access in 

those areas. Areas closed to 

oil and gas development 

(16,878,220 acres), mineral 

materials (5,000,400 acres),

locatable minerals 

(1,560,050acres) and solid 

leasable minerals (5,000,400

acres), could limit or restrict 

travel and access in those 

areas. Travel in these areas 

would be limited to existing 

roads and trails. Compared 

with Alternative A, areas

closed to minerals activities 

are much larger, expanding 

the area of impact. Mineral 

As with Alternative A, areas 

where surface disturbing 

activities are prohibited 

(including buffer areas 

around sage-grouse leks, 

nesting areas, and other 

sensitive areas) would limit 

travel and access to 

designated roads and trails in 

these areas. Surface 

disturbing activities under this 

alternative are restricted on 

75,870 acres.

The development of roads 

and transportation systems 

required for oil, gas, and 

mineral development would 

increase travel and access in 

those areas. Areas closed to 

oil and gas development 

(964,860 acres), mineral 

As with Alternative A, areas 

where surface disturbing 

activities are prohibited 

(including buffer areas 

around sage-grouse leks, 

nesting areas, and other 

sensitive areas) would limit 

travel and access to 

designated roads and trails in 

these areas. Surface 

disturbing activities under this 

alternative are prohibited on 

304,970 acres and restricted 

on 21,950 acres. 

The development of roads 

and transportation systems 

required for oil, gas, and 

mineral development would 

increase travel and access in 

those areas. Areas closed to 

oil and gas development 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-203

No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

development (871,780 acres),

mineral materials (274,860

acres), locatable minerals 

(1,560,050 acres) and solid 

leasable minerals (234,230

acres), could limit or restrict 

travel and access in those 

areas. Travel in these areas 

would be limited to existing 

roads and trails. Mineral 

development could potentially 

affect the location of 

subsequent transportation 

systems in those areas where 

development of minerals 

occurs. Areas open to OHV 

use would provide motorized 

access to much of the decision 

area.

Acres for other surface and 

sub-surface disturbing 

activities, such as ROW 

exclusion areas (285,930

acres) and areas closed to 

wind energy (437,120 acres) 

could also limit or preclude

transportation development in 

these areas.

expanding the area where 

impacts could occur. 

Mineral development could

potentially affect the 

location of subsequent 

transportation systems

where minerals are 

developed.

Roads, primitive roads, and 

trails in priority habitat not 

designated in travel 

management plans would 

be restored, removing them 

from travel and access uses 

under this alternative.

Acres for other surface and 

sub-surface disturbing 

activities, such as ROW 

exclusion areas (5,141,340

acres) and areas closed to 

wind energy (5,000,400) are 

all greatly expanded when

compared with 

Alternative A, potentially 

limiting or precluding 

transportation development 

in these areas.

development could

potentially affect the location 

of subsequent transportation 

systems in those areas

where minerals are 

developed.

Prohibiting new road 

construction within four miles 

of active sage-grouse leks

and avoiding new road 

construction in sage-grouse

priority and general habitat 

would restrict travel and 

access in these areas.

Acres for other surface and 

sub-surface disturbing 

activities, such as ROW 

exclusion areas 

(11,531,340acres), areas 

closed to wind energy 

(11,531,340 acres) are all 

greatly expanded when 

compared with Alternative A, 

potentially limiting or 

precluding transportation 

development in these areas.

materials (274,860 acres),

locatable minerals (1,560,050

acres) and solid leasable 

minerals (234,230 acres),

could limit or restrict travel 

and access in those areas. 

Travel in these areas would 

be limited to existing roads 

and trails. Compared with 

Alternative A, acres closed to 

minerals activities are very 

similar. 

Prohibiting new road 

construction within 0.25 mile

of active sage-grouse leks, 

and avoiding new road 

construction in sage-grouse

core and general habitat 

would restrict travel and 

access in these areas.

Acres for other surface and 

sub-surface disturbing 

activities, such as ROW 

exclusion areas (5,141,340

acres) and areas closed to 

wind energy (5,000,400) 

would be expanded when 

compared with Alternative A, 

potentially limiting or 

precluding transportation 

development in these areas.

(892,090 acres), mineral 

materials (274,860 acres),

locatable minerals (1,560,050

acres) and solid leasable 

minerals (234,230 acres), 

could limit or restrict travel 

and access in those areas. 

Travel in these areas would 

be limited to existing roads 

and trails. Compared with 

Alternative A, acres closed to 

minerals activities are very 

similar.

Prohibiting primary and 

secondary roads within 1.9 

miles of active sage-grouse

leks, and avoiding new road 

construction in sage-grouse

core and general habitat 

would restrict travel and 

access in these areas.

Acres for other surface and 

sub-surface disturbing 

activities, such as ROW 

exclusion areas (285,930

acres) and areas closed to 

wind energy (5,002,520

acres) would be expanded 

when compared with 

Alternative A, potentially 

limiting or precluding 

transportation development 

in these areas.

Vegetation

Vegetation and vegetation 

communities would primarily 

be impacted by different forms 

of surface disturbance and 

disruptive activities. These 

activities would result in both 

short and long term impacts to 

Impacts to vegetation from 

fluid minerals development 

and associated surface 

disturbing activities would 

be reduced compared to 

Alternative A, as short-term 

surface disturbances would 

Impacts to vegetation from 

surface disturbing activities 

could be reduced compared 

to Alternative A, as shortterm surface disturbances 

from fluid minerals 

development would be 

Impacts to vegetation from 

surface disturbing activities 

would be the same as 

Alternative A, except the 

level of intensity would be 

reduced as the total shortterm surface disturbance 

Impacts from fluid mineral 

activities would be the same 

as Alternative A, except the 

level of intensity would be 

different as the projected well 

development would be 

reduced to 12,355 oil and 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-204 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

small localized areas as well 

as large areas from the 

removal or damage of 

vegetative surface cover and 

vegetation habitat. 

These impacts would result in 

various levels of decreases to 

plant community health,

diversity, and impact habitats 

that are susceptible to 

invasive/noxious weeds. 

Increases in invasive and 

noxious weeds would result in 

a decline to native species 

compromising the overall 

habitat health (through 

ecological processes). Impacts 

to vegetation from fluid 

minerals development would 

have 130,330 acres of shortterm surface disturbance and 

39,050 acres of long-term 

surface disturbance. Most of 

the development and 

associated impacts such as 

loss of vegetation habitat 

would be from the construction 

and maintenance of 13,653 oil 

and gas wells and 2,758 

CBNG wells. Impacts to 

vegetation could be eliminated 

on 274,860 acres that are 

closed to mineral materials

development as well as on 

234,230 acres closed to solid 

mineral development and 

1,560,050 acres 

closed/withdrawn to locatable 

mineral development. These 

closures would help to 

preserve plant community 

functions and health as well as 

reduce habitat fragmentation.

be reduced to 104,050 

acres and long-term surface 

disturbance acres to 

33,540. Surface disturbing 

impacts from oil, gas, and 

CBNG wells could be 

reduced compared to 

Alternative A, as the 

number of wells would be 

reduced to 11,555 oil and 

gas wells and 2,154 CBNG 

wells. These reductions 

would reduce the total acres 

developed for fluid minerals 

thus reducing habitat 

fragmentation. Impacts to 

vegetation from solid 

minerals development, 

minerals materials 

development, and wind 

energy development would 

decrease compared to 

Alternative A. Impacts to 

vegetation from locatable 

minerals development could 

be reduced with the 

recommended withdrawal of 

3,442,120 acres from 

development. The 

recommended withdrawals 

could reduce vegetation 

removal, habitat 

fragmentation, and invasive 

species establishment 

associated with minerals 

development and 

associated surface 

disturbing activities. 

Protection for vegetation 

habitat health and continuity 

would be increased 

compared to Alternative A, 

as ROW development and 

reduced to 85,140 acres and 

long-term surface 

disturbances would be 

reduced to 27,030 acres.

These disturbances would be 

reduced compared to 

Alternative A, as fluid mineral 

well development would be 

reduced to 9,533 oil and gas 

wells and 1,594 CBNG wells. 

These reductions would 

reduce the total acres of 

vegetation lost or impacted to 

fluid development and 

associated surface disturbing 

activities which would 

maintain habitat functions 

and health in these areas. 

Impacts to vegetation from 

solid minerals development, 

locatable minerals 

development, and minerals 

materials development would 

decrease compared to 

Alternative A. These closures 

would reduce vegetation 

removal, habitat 

fragmentation, and invasive 

species establishment 

associated with minerals 

development and associated 

surface disturbing activities. 

Protection for vegetation 

habitat health and continuity 

would be increased 

compared to Alternative A, as 

ROW and wind energy 

development and associated 

surface disturbing activities 

would be excluded or closed 

on 11,531,340 acres.

acres from fluid minerals 

development would be 

reduced to 122,910 acres 

and 37,720 long-term surface 

disturbance areas. This 

reduction in surface 

disturbance would help 

maintain ecological 

processes important to plant 

community health and 

ecological processes. The 

reduction in impacts to 

vegetation resources 

compared to Alternative A

would mostly be due to the 

reduction of fluid mineral 

wells, with oil and gas wells 

being reduced to 13,083 

wells and CBNG reduced to 

2,686 wells. Reduction in 

wells could also reduce 

associated surface 

disturbances such as the 

construction of roads and 

utilities which could reduce 

vegetation removal 

compared to Alternative A. 

Impacts from surface 

disturbing activities for solid 

minerals development, 

mineral materials, and

recommended withdrawals of 

locatable minerals 

development, would be the 

same as Alternative A. 

Impacts to vegetation from 

wind energy development 

would be reduced compared 

to Alternative A, as the 

amount of acres closed to 

wind energy development 

would increase to 5,000,400

acres even though the 

gas wells and 2,462 CBNG 

wells. This reduction in wells 

would help maintain plant 

community ecological 

functions and maintain 

vegetation habitat continuity. 

Compared to Alternative A, 

surface disturbing activities 

from fluid minerals 

development would be 

reduced, which would reduce 

short-term surface 

disturbance to 112,330 acres 

and long-term surface 

disturbances to 35,430 acres. 

Surface disturbing activities 

from solid leasable minerals 

and mineral materials 

development would be the 

same as Alternative A. 

Withdrawals of locatable 

minerals would be proposed 

on 3,442,120 acres, which 

would reduce vegetation 

removal and habitat 

fragmentation as compared 

to Alternative A. Impacts to 

vegetation from wind energy 

development would be 

reduced compared to 

Alternative A, as the amount 

of acres closed to wind 

energy development would 

increase to 5,002,520 acres 

and restricted on 6,528,810

acres. These 

closures/restrictions would 

reduce the acres of surface 

disturbances from wind 

energy development which 

would reduce vegetation loss 

and habitat fragmentation.
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-205

No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Surface disturbing impacts 

from ROW development would 

be excluded on 285,930 acres 

and avoided on 2,460,340

acres, which could reduce 

vegetation loss, habitat 

fragmentation, and invasive 

species establishment. 

Vegetation habitat continuity 

and ecological processes 

could be maintained as 

437,120 acres would be 

closed to wind energy 

development and 3,888,930 

acres would be restricted to 

wind energy development. 

These restrictions could 

reduce vegetation loss and 

habitat fragmentation 

associated with surface 

disturbing activities associated 

with wind energy 

development.

associated surface 

disturbing activities would 

be excluded on 5,141,340

acres and avoided on 

6,390,010 acres.

amount of acres restricted to 

wind energy development 

would be reduced to 501,830 

acres. These

closures/restrictions would 

reduce the acres of surface 

disturbances which would 

reduce vegetation loss and 

habitat fragmentation.

Visual Resources

Visual resource categories and objectives would be the same for all alternatives. Although the amount of visual impacts would vary by alternative, it is assumed 

that all VRM/SIO/VQO objectives would be met under all alternatives.

Visual resources could decline 

in quality due to surface 

disturbance from mineral and 

energy development, 

recreation activities, and other 

similar activities. The bulk of 

changes to the visual quality of 

the landscape would occur in 

VRM Class III or IV (BLM), 

moderate or low SIO (Forest 

Service), or the Modification 

level VQO (Forest Service).

Visual resources in sagegrouse priority habitat would 

be largely preserved due to 

efforts to protect sagegrouse and sagebrush 

habitat, which limit surface 

disturbance compared to 

Alternative A.

Visual resources in sagegrouse priority and general 

habitat would be largely 

preserved due to efforts to 

protect sage-grouse and 

sagebrush habitat, which limit 

surface disturbance 

compared to Alternative A.

Impacts to visual resources 

would be similar to 

Alternative A, except some 

visual resources could be 

spared due to limitations 

placed on surface 

disturbance and development 

density compared to 

Alternative A.

Impacts to visual resources 

would be less than 

Alternative A, due to

limitations placed on surface 

disturbance and development 

density.

Watershed and Water Quality

Impacts to water resources Impacts to water resources Impacts to water resources Impacts to water resources Impacts to water resources 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-206 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

would occur from surface 

disturbing and development 

activities (e.g., mineral 

development, ROW 

development) that result in 

vegetation removal, soil 

compaction, increased 

overland flow, and increased 

sediment, salt, and nutrient 

transport to water bodies. The 

impacts would be greatest 

under this alternative because 

of fewer restrictions on newly 

permitted surface disturbing 

activities within the planning 

area.

Managing 285,930 acres as 

ROW exclusion areas, 

871,780 acres as unavailable 

for oil and gas leasing, 40,980

acres as NSO areas, and 

68,550 acres in which surface 

disturbing activities are 

prohibited would reduce 

surface disturbances and help 

to maintain soil and vegetation 

resources that would serve to 

slow runoff and decrease 

erosion and inputs into surface 

water features.

would occur from surface 

disturbing and development 

activities (e.g., mineral 

development, ROW 

development) that result in 

vegetation removal, soil 

compaction, increased 

overland flow, and 

increased sediment, salt, 

and nutrient transport to 

water bodies. 

Managing 5,141,340 acres 

as ROW exclusion areas, 

6,809,580 acres as 

unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing, and 2,082,140

acres as NSO areas would 

reduce surface 

disturbances and help to 

maintain soil and vegetation 

resources that would serve 

to slow runoff and decrease 

erosion and inputs into 

surface water features.

would occur from surface 

disturbing and development 

activities (e.g., mineral 

development, ROW 

development) that result in 

vegetation removal, soil 

compaction, increased 

overland flow, and increased 

sediment, salt, and nutrient 

transport to water bodies. 

Managing 11,531,340 acres 

as ROW exclusion areas, 

16,878,220 acres as 

unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing, and 2,082,140 acres 

as NSO areas would reduce 

surface disturbances and 

help to maintain soil and 

vegetation resources that 

would serve to slow runoff 

and decrease erosion and 

inputs into surface water 

features. Because such 

restrictions are the most 

extensive under this 

alternative, impacts to water 

resources would be the least 

intensive.

would occur from surface 

disturbing and development 

activities (e.g., mineral 

development, ROW 

development) that result in 

vegetation removal, soil 

compaction, increased 

overland flow, and increased 

sediment, salt, and nutrient 

transport to water bodies. 

Managing 5,141,340 acres 

as ROW exclusion areas and 

964,860 acres as unavailable 

for oil and gas leasing would 

reduce surface disturbances 

and help to maintain soil and 

vegetation resources that 

would serve to slow runoff 

and decrease erosion and 

inputs into surface water 

features.

would occur from surface 

disturbing and development 

activities (e.g., mineral 

development, ROW 

development) that result in 

vegetation removal, soil 

compaction, increased 

overland flow, and increased 

sediment, salt, and nutrient 

transport to water bodies. 

Managing 285,930 acres as 

ROW exclusion areas, 

892,090 acres as unavailable 

for oil and gas leasing, 

689,300 acres as NSO 

areas, and 304,970 acres in 

which surface disturbing 

activities are prohibited would 

reduce surface disturbances 

and help to maintain soil and 

vegetation resources that 

would serve to slow runoff 

and decrease erosion and 

inputs into surface water 

features.

Wild Horses

Impacts to wild horses would 

occur from surface-disturbing 

and development activities 

(e.g., mineral development, 

ROW development) that 

remove or degrade forage 

resources. The impacts would 

be greatest under this 

alternative because of fewer 

restrictions on newly permitted 

surface disturbing activities 

Impacts to wild horses 

would occur from surfacedisturbing and development 

activities (e.g., mineral 

development, ROW 

development) that remove 

or degrade forage 

resources. 

Managing 5,141,340 acres 

as ROW exclusion areas, 

Impacts to wild horses would 

occur from surface-disturbing 

and development activities 

(e.g., mineral development, 

ROW development) that 

remove or degrade forage 

resources. 

Managing 11,531,340 acres 

as ROW exclusion areas, 

16,878,220 acres as 

Impacts to wild horses would 

occur from surface-disturbing 

and development activities 

(e.g., mineral development, 

ROW development) that 

remove or degrade forage 

resources. 

Managing 5,141,340 acres 

as ROW exclusion areas and 

964,860 acres as unavailable 

Impacts to wild horses would 

occur from surface-disturbing 

and development activities 

(e.g., mineral development, 

ROW development) that 

remove or degrade forage 

resources. 

Managing 285,930 acres as 

ROW exclusion areas, 

892,090 acres as unavailable 
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-207

No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

within the planning area.

Managing 285,930 acres as 

ROW exclusion areas, 

871,780 acres as unavailable 

for oil and gas leasing, 40,980

acres as NSO areas, and 

68,550 acres in which surface 

disturbing activities are 

prohibited would reduce 

surface disturbances and help 

to maintain forage resources, 

but to a lesser extent than the 

other alternatives.

6,809,580 acres as 

unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing, and 2,082,140

acres as NSO areas would 

reduce surface 

disturbances and help to 

maintain forage resources.

unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing, and 2,082,140 acres 

as NSO areas, would reduce 

surface disturbances and 

help to maintain forage 

resources. Because such 

restrictions are the most 

extensive under this 

alternative, impacts to wild 

horses would be the least 

intensive.

for oil and gas leasing would 

reduce surface disturbances 

and help to maintain forage 

resources.

for oil and gas leasing, 

689,300 acres as NSO 

areas, and 304,970 acres in 

which surface disturbing 

activities are prohibited would 

reduce surface disturbances 

and help to maintain forage 

resources.

Wildland Fire and Fuels

Wildland fire management 

would primarily be impacted 

by different forms of surface 

disturbing activities associated 

with minerals and energy 

development which could 

increase human presence and 

the use of heavy equipment. 

This increase in human 

presence and heavy 

equipment use could increase 

additional ignition sources, the 

probability of wildland fire 

occurrence, and the need for 

fire suppression activities. 

Surface disturbing activities 

could reduce fire fuels loads 

from vegetation removal, 

increase fire breaks from 

roads and clearings as well as 

improve access for fire 

suppression activities in these 

areas. ROW development 

would be excluded on 285,930

acres which could reduce 

human presence and ignition 

sources such as vehicles and 

machinery that could cause 

Surface disturbing impacts 

from ROW development 

would be reduced 

compared to Alternative A, 

as areas closed to ROW 

development would 

increase to 5,141,340 acres 

which would reduce human 

presence and ignition 

sources from development. 

Impacts from wind energy 

development would be 

reduced compared to 

Alternative A, as areas 

closed to wind energy 

development would 

increase to 5,000,400 acres 

and restricted acres would 

increase to 6,530,940 acres 

which would reduce human 

and machinery caused 

wildfires. Potential wildfires 

from fluid minerals 

development would be 

reduced compared to 

Alternative A, as the 

number of wells developed 

would be reduced to 11,555 

Surface disturbing impacts 

from ROW and wind energy 

development would be 

reduced compared to 

Alternative A, as areas 

excluded from ROWs or 

closed to wind development 

would increase to 11,531,340

acres, which would reduce 

human presence and ignition 

sources from development. 

Potential wildfires from fluid 

mineral development would 

be reduced compared to 

Alternative A, as the number 

of wells developed would be 

reduced to 9,5335 oil and 

gas and 1,594 CBNG wells. 

The development of these 

well would disturb fewer 

acres compared to 

Alternative A, with 85,140

acres of short-term surface 

disturbance and 27,030

acres of long-term surface 

disturbance Impacts to 

wildland fire from solid 

minerals development, 

Surface disturbing impacts 

from ROW development 

would be reduced compared 

to Alternative A, as areas 

excluded from ROW 

development would increase 

to 5,141,340 acres which 

would reduce human 

presence and ignition 

sources from development. 

Impacts from wind energy 

development would be 

reduced compared to 

Alternative A, as areas 

closed to wind energy 

development would increase 

to 5,000,400 acres which 

could reduce human and 

machinery caused wildfires. 

Potential wildfires from fluid 

mineral development would 

be reduced compared to 

Alternative A, as the number 

of wells developed would be 

reduced to 13,083 oil and 

gas and 2,686 CBNG wells. 

The development of oil and 

gas wells would disturb fewer 

Surface disturbing impacts 

from ROW development 

would be similar to 

Alternative A. Impacts from 

wind energy development 

would be reduced compared 

to Alternative A, as areas 

closed to wind energy 

development would increase 

to 5,002,520 acres and 

restricted acres would 

increase to 6,528,810 acres 

which could reduce human 

and machinery caused 

wildfires. Potential wildfires 

from fluid minerals 

development would be 

reduced compared to 

Alternative A, as the number 

of wells developed would be 

reduced to 12,355 oil and 

gas and 2,462 CBNG wells. 

The development of these 

well would disturb fewer

acres compared to 

Alternative A, with 112,330

acres of short-term surface 

disturbance and 35,430
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-208 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

wildland fires. Impacts from 

wind energy development 

would be eliminated on 

437,120 acres that are 

prohibited to wind energy 

development and reduced on 

3,888,930 acres that are 

restricted for wind energy 

development which would 

reduce human and machinery 

caused wildfires. Potential 

sources of wildfires from fluid 

minerals development would 

increase on 130,330 acres in 

the short-term and 39,050

acres in the long-term in areas 

outside of minerals 

development restrictions 

where fluid mineral 

development could reduce 

plant community health and 

increase the risk or humancaused fire starts. Most of the 

development and associated 

impacts such as loss of 

vegetation habitat would be 

from the construction and 

maintenance of 13,653 oil and 

gas wells and 2,758 CBNG 

wells. Potential fire ignition 

sources from minerals 

development would be 

eliminated on 871,780 acres 

that are closed to mineral 

materials development and 

234,230 acres closed to solid

leasable minerals

development. These closures 

would help to preserve plant 

community functions, reduce 

habitat fire breaks, and 

increase fire fuel loads in 

these areas. Impacts from 

oil and gas and 2,154 

CBNG wells. The 

development of these wells

would disturb fewer acres 

compared to Alternative A, 

with 104,050 acres of shortterm surface disturbance 

and 33,540 acres of longterm surface disturbance. 

Impacts to wildland fire from 

solid minerals development, 

locatable minerals 

development, and minerals 

materials development 

would decrease compared 

to Alternative A. The 

closures or withdrawals

would reduce potential fire 

ignition sources associated 

with human presence, 

motor vehicle travel, and 

construction of minerals 

development.

Within priority habitats, fuels 

treatments would be 

designed and implemented 

to protect sagebrush 

systems. Burned areas in 

priority habitats would be 

restored and recovered.

Priority sage-grouse habitat 

suppression would prioritize 

firefighter and public safety 

to conserve the habitat.

General sage-grouse 

habitat would have a high 

suppression priority where 

wildfires threaten priority 

sage-grouse habitat.

locatable minerals 

development, and minerals 

materials development would 

decrease compared to 

Alternative A. These 

closures/withdrawals would 

reduce potential fire ignition

sources associated with 

human presence, motor 

vehicle travel, and 

construction of minerals 

development.

Within priority and general 

habitats, fuels treatments 

would be designed and 

implemented to protect 

sagebrush systems. 

Restoration and suppression 

practices would be the same 

as Alternative B.

acres compared to 

Alternative A, with 122,910

acres of short-term surface 

disturbance and 37,720

acres of long-term surface 

disturbance. Impacts from 

surface disturbing activities 

for solid minerals 

development, mineral 

materials, and locatable 

minerals development would 

be the same as Alternative A.

Wildfire restoration and 

suppression actions would be 

the same as Alternative A.

acres of long-term surface 

disturbance. Surface 

disturbing activities from solid

minerals and mineral material 

development would be the 

same as Alternative A, and 

proposed locatable mineral 

withdrawals, 3,442,120 

acres, would be greater than 

Alternative A. The closures

and withdrawals would 

reduce potential human and 

development caused 

wildfires.

Within sage-grouse core 

habitats, fuels treatments 

would be designed and 

implemented to protect 

existing sagebrush systems 

(refer to WGFD Protocols for 

Treating Sagebrush to 

Benefit Sage-Grouse in 

Appendix A). Burned areas 

within sage-grouse core 

habitats would be restored.

Within sage-grouse core 

areas, suppression practices 

would be the same as 

Alternative B. General sagegrouse habitat would have a 

suppression priority 

commensurate with the local 

fire plan.
Draft EIS Chapter 2 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 2-209

No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

locatable minerals 

development would be 

eliminated on 1,560,050 acres

that are withdrawn from 

development and could be 

eliminated on 117,370 acres 

that are proposed for 

withdrawal. The withdrawals 

could eliminate potential fire 

sources associated with 

development and surface 

disturbing activities. 

Wildlife and Fisheries

Impacts would result from 

surface disturbing activities, 

primarily renewable and nonrenewable energy 

development and associated 

infrastructure (pipelines, power 

lines, and roads). Estimated 

initial surface disturbance from 

oil, gas, and CBNG is 130,330

acres. Additional surface 

disturbing activities from wind 

energy, pipelines, power lines, 

roads, and mineral 

development could impact 

wildlife and fish through loss, 

alteration, and fragmentation 

of habitats and displacement 

of wildlife. 

Continued livestock grazing 

practices could reach 

Wyoming Standards for 

Rangeland Health or the 

Forest Service equivalent. 

Lek buffers and other existing 

restrictions would protect 

lands, especially sagebrush 

habitat, from surface 

disturbing activities, habitat 

Under Alternative B, 

impacts from surface 

disturbing activities are 

lower than all alternatives 

except for Alternative C. 

Management would close 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority habitat to oil, gas, 

and CBNG, wind energy, as 

well as other minerals. 

Estimated initial surface 

disturbance from oil, gas, 

and CBNG is 104,050 

acres. 

Additional management for 

livestock grazing could 

allow for greater 

achievement of Wyoming 

Standards for Rangeland 

Health or the Forest Service

equivalent, and provide 

improved habitat for wildlife 

and fisheries. 

Larger lek buffers and 

restrictions to the density of 

disturbance for surface 

disturbing activities to 

protect sage-grouse habitat 

Impacts from surface 

disturbing activities are the 

lowest under Alternative C. 

Management would close 

Greater Sage-Grouse priority 

and general habitat to oil, 

gas, CBNG, and wind 

energy; and would close 

priority habitat to other 

minerals. Estimated initial 

surface disturbance from oil, 

gas, and CBNG is 85,140

acres. 

Closing priority habitat to 

livestock grazing could allow 

for improved habitat and 

ample forage for wildlife and 

improved water quality for 

fisheries. 

Larger lek buffers and 

restrictions to the density of 

disturbance for surface 

disturbing activities to protect 

sage-grouse habitat would 

protect more land, especially 

sagebrush habitat, from 

surface disturbing activities, 

habitat loss, and 

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 

sage-grouse habitat. 

Estimated initial surface 

disturbance from oil, gas, and 

CBNG is 122,910 acres. 

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 wildlife.

Lek buffers, similar to 

Alternative A and other 

restrictions would protect 

lands, especially sagebrush 

habitat, from surface 

disturbing activities, habitat 

loss, and fragmentation.

For additional information on 

effects to Forest Service

wildlife and fish, please see 

Overall, impacts to wildlife 

and fish habitat from 

Alternative E would be very 

similar to Alternative A. 

Estimated initial surface 

disturbance from oil, gas, and 

CBNG is 112,330. All core 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

would be closed to wind 

development, protecting 

more habitat than 

Alternative A from loss, 

alteration, and fragmentation 

of habitat and displacement 

of wildlife. 

Management for livestock 

grazing could allow for 

achievement of Wyoming 

Standards for Rangeland 

Health or the Forest Service

equivalent, and provide 

improved habitat for wildlife 

and fisheries.

Lek buffers larger than 

Alternative A and other 

restrictions would protect 

lands, especially sagebrush 

habitat, from surface 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS 

2-210 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

loss, and fragmentation. 

For additional information on 

effects to Forest Service

wildlife and fish, please see 

the Wildlife and Botany Report 

in Appendix J.

would protect more land, 

especially sagebrush 

habitat, from surface 

disturbing activities, habitat 

loss, and fragmentation.

For additional information 

on effects to Forest Service

wildlife and fish, please see 

the Wildlife and Botany 

Report in Appendix J.

fragmentation.

Overall, Alternative C would 

provide the greatest 

protection of sagebrush 

habitat among all the 

alternatives.

For additional information on 

effects to Forest Service

wildlife and fish, please see 

the Wildlife and Botany 

Report in Appendix J.

the Wildlife and Botany 

Report in Appendix J.

disturbing activities, habitat 

loss, and fragmentation.

For additional information on 

effects to Forest Service

wildlife and fish, please see 

the Wildlife and Botany 

Report in Appendix J.