Final EIS Appendix D

APPENDIX D—THE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE 

IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-1 
Appendix D Final EIS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. D-3

COT OBJECTIVE 1: STOP POPULATION DECLINES AND HABITAT LOSS....................................................... D-5

COT OBJECTIVE 2: IMPLEMENT TARGETED HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND RESTORATION....................... D-19

COT OBJECTIVE 3: DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT STATE AND FEDERAL CONSERVATION STRATEGIES AND 

ASSOCIATED INCENTIVE-BASED CONSERVATION ACTIONS AND REGULATORY MECHANISMS. .......... D-20

COT OBJECTIVE 4: PROACTIVE CONSERVATION ACTIONS........................................................................ D-22

COT OBJECTIVE 5: DEVELOPMENT OF MONITORING PLANS ..................................................................... D-24

COT OBJECTIVE 6: PRIORITIZE, FUND AND IMPLEMENT RESEARCH TO ADDRESS EXISTING 

UNCERTAINTIES. .................................................................................................................................... D-57

LITERATURE CITED..................................................................................................................................... D-62

D-2 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Appendix D

INTRODUCTION

The Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments (LUP Amendments) provides specific goals, 

objectives, management actions, and required design features for the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse in 

Wyoming. These are the commitments made to meet the federal agencies’ national policy and direction for the 

conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse in light of the 2010 US Fish and Wildlife Service listing decision as 

warranted but precluded from listing under the Endangered Species Act. Through the National Planning 

Strategy, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Forest Service (Forest Service) in coordination with 

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have identified conservation measures to be included in the respective 

agencies’ land use plans as the principal regulatory mechanisms to assure adequate conservation of the Greater 

Sage-Grouse and its habitat on public lands.

The measures identified in the LUP Amendments have been developed in coordination with not just the 

USFWS, but also the State of Wyoming, including the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), and 

local cooperating agencies including conservation districts and counties.

Wyoming has established core population areas to help delineate landscape planning units by distinguishing 

areas of high biological value. These areas are based on the locations of breeding areas and are intended to 

help balance Greater Sage-Grouse habitat requirements with demand for energy development (Doherty et al. 

2011). The Proposed LUP Amendments are consistent with the Core Area Strategy, but contains additional 

restrictions to protect other resources, which results in added protections to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and 

achieving conservation objectives identified in the Conservation Objectives Team (COT) report on BLMmanaged public lands. The COT report indicates that the Core Area Strategy is a substantial regulatory 

mechanism that contributes to the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse and balances the priorities of retaining 

a healthy Greater Sage-Grouse population on the landscape and energy development.

This appendix will introduce the framework for implementation of Greater Sage-Grouse conservation 

measures within the Casper, Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins, and Rock Springs BLM Field Offices.

Implementation is a combination of permitting activities under the auspices of management direction provided 

in the LUP, undertaking specific activities in pursuit of the goals and objectives identified in the plan and 

monitoring of sagebrush habitat and populations.

The implementation framework outlined here is focused specifically towards Greater Sage-Grouse and is 

reflective of how the national strategy will be assimilated into the existing statewide implementation efforts 

currently in place in Wyoming. This framework has been developed mindful of the varying scales at which 

implementation will be evaluated at the local level to define successful conservation measures, at the state 

level to assess success of the statewide strategy, and across the species’ range.

In 2013, the Director of the USFWS tasked staff with the development of range-wide conservation objectives 

for the sage-grouse to define the degree to which threats need to be reduced or ameliorated to conserve sagegrouse so that it is no longer in danger of extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction in the 

foreseeable future. Recognizing that state wildlife agencies have management expertise and management 

authority for sage-grouse, the USFWS created a COT of state and USFWS representatives to accomplish this 

task.

The COT conservation framework consisted of (1) identifying sage-grouse population and habitat status and 

threats, (2) defining a broad conservation goal, (3) identifying priority areas for conservation, and (4) 

developing specific conservation objectives and measures. The COT used three parameters—population and 

habitat representation, redundancy, and resilience (Shaffer and Stein 2010, Redford et al. 2011)—as guiding 

concepts in developing the conservation goal, priority areas for conservation, conservation objectives, and 

measures.

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-3
Appendix D Final EIS 

The COT report identified priority areas for Greater Sage-Grouse population habitats as Priority Areas for 

Conservation or (PAC). PACs are recognized as key areas across the landscape that are necessary to maintain 

redundant, representative, and resilient populations” of the species. The COT report describes maintaining the 

integrity of PACs as “the essential foundation for sage-grouse conservation.” PACs cover nearly 73 million 

acres across the west; within the Wyoming LUP Amendments planning area, more than 9.95 million acres are 

considered priority habitat. Forty-nine percent of the priority habitat in the planning area is BLM/Forest 

Service-administered surface and 68 percent is BLM-administered minerals. Based upon 2007 lek counts, and 

the population data contained in the COT report, the LUP Amendments planning area contains an estimated 

26.2 percent of the range-wide population of Greater Sage-Grouse. Table D-1 shows the acres of Greater SageGrouse habitat within the LUP Amendments planning area.

Table D-1. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat within the LUP Amendments Planning Area

Populations/Subpopulations: Wyoming Portion, Powder River and Wyoming Basins; Laramie; 

Jackson Hole; WAFWA Management Zones I & II

Surface 

Estate

Core Area

Acres (%)

Connectivity Corridor

Acres (%)

Priority Habitat Total 

(core + connectivity)

General Habitat

Acres (%)

Private 3,380,789 (39) 57,660 (59) 3,888,440 (39) 8,616,470 (52)

State 697,630 (78) 5,760 (6) 703,390 (7) 1,026,500 (6)

BLM 4,866,650 (49) 28,300 (29) 4,894,850 (49) 5,951,260 (36)

Other 458,870 (5) 6,430 (7) 465,300 (5) 962,380 (6)

Total 9,853,930 105,530 9,952,080 17,011,300

Fluid 

Mineral 

Estate

Core Area

Acres (%)

Connectivity Corridor

Acres (%)

Priority Habitat Total 

(core + connectivity)

General Habitat

Acres (%)

Non-federal 3,174,250 (32) 26,890 (27) 3,204,140 (32) 6,907,720 (42)

BLM 6,679,680 (68) 71,260 (73) 6,750,940 (68) 9,648,890 (58)

Total 9,853,930 98,150 9,952,080 16,556,610

The conservation objectives identified in the COT report, targeted at maintaining redundant, representative, 

and resilient sage-grouse habitats and populations, is the basis for the development of the Proposed LUP 

Amendments. Due to the variability in ecological conditions and the nature of the threats across the range of 

the sage-grouse, developing detailed, prescriptive species or habitat actions was not attainable at the rangewide scale. Specific strategies and actions necessary to achieve the conservation objectives have been 

developed by BLM and Forest Service in cooperation with state and local governments to ensure 

implementation of activities to meet the objectives identified in the COT report.

D-4 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Appendix D

COT OBJECTIVE 1: 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. There are no populations within the range of sage-grouse that 

are immune to the threat of habitat loss and fragmentation (COT report 2013).”

The COT report identified a series of threats to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and the extent of those threats at 

the population scale. The management actions identified in the LUP Amendments were specifically designed 

to reduce the threats, as they were identified. The Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments

encompasses lands within WAFWA Management Zones 1 and 2. To ensure that the threats are adequately 

addressed by the LUP Amendments, a strategy for reviewing activities and projects on public lands to 

determine the extent of their impact on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat has also been developed. The following 

outlines the process by which all activities on public lands will be reviewed.

The BLM/Forest Service will ensure that any activities or projects in Greater Sage-Grouse habitats would: 1) 

only occur in compliance with the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments Greater Sage-Grouse

goals and objectives for priority management areas; and 2) maintain neutral or positive Greater Sage-Grouse

population trends and habitat by avoiding, minimizing, and offsetting unavoidable impacts to assure a 

conservation gain at the scale of this land use plan and within Greater Sage-Grouse population areas, state

boundaries, and WAFWA Management Zones through the application of mitigation for implementation-level 

decisions. The mitigation process will follow the regulations from the White House Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1508.20; e.g. avoid, minimize, and compensate), hereafter referred to as the mitigation 

hierarchy, while also following Secretary of the Interior Order 3330 and consulting BLM, USFWS and other 

current and appropriate mitigation guidance. If it is determined that residual impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse

from implementation-level actions would remain after applying avoidance and minimization measures to the 

extent possible, then compensatory mitigation projects will be used to offset residual impacts, or the project 

may be deferred or denied if necessary to achieve the goals and objectives for priority and general management 

areas in the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments.

To ensure that impacts from activities proposed in sage-grouse core areas are appropriately approved and 

mitigated as necessary, the BLM will apply mitigation measures and conservation actions and potentially 

modify the location, design, construction, and/or operation of proposed land uses or activities to comply with 

statutory requirements for environmental protection. The mitigation measures and conservation actions for 

proposed projects or activities in these areas will be identified as part of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) environmental review process, through interdisciplinary analysis involving resource specialists, 

project proponents, government entities, landowners or other Surface Management Agencies. Those measures 

selected for implementation will be identified in the Record of Decision (ROD) or Decision Record (DR) for 

those authorizations and will inform a potential lessee, permittee, or operator of the requirements that must be 

met when using BLM-administered public lands and minerals to mitigate, per the mitigation hierarchy 

referenced above, impacts from the activity or project such that sage-grouse goals and objectives are met. 

Because these actions create a clear obligation for the BLM to ensure any proposed mitigation action adopted 

in the environmental review process is performed, there is assurance that mitigation will lead to a reduction of 

environmental impacts in the implementation stage and include binding mechanisms for enforcement (CEQ 

Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies 2011).

To achieve the goals and objectives for core areas in the Proposed LUP Amendments, the BLM will assess all 

proposed land uses or activities such as road, pipeline, communication tower, or power line construction, fluid 

and solid mineral development, range improvements, and recreational activities proposed for location in core 

areas in a step-wise manner. The following steps identify a screening process for review of proposed activities 

or projects in these areas. This process will provide a consistent approach and ensure that authorization of these 

projects, if granted, will appropriately mitigate impacts and be consistent with the LUP Amendments goals 

and objectives for sage-grouse. The following steps provide for a sequential screening of proposals. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-5
Appendix D Final EIS 

Table D-2 Implementation of LUP Amendments Decisions to Address COT Threats

COT Threat Threat Extent Program Area

LUP 

Amendments

Decision

Implementation Process Tracking 

Mechanism

Sagebrush 

Elimination

Present but Localized 

(Management Zone [MZ1]) 

Not Present (Laramie Pop)

Present but Localized

(Jackson Hole Pop)

Present but Localized

(Wyoming Basin Pop)

BLM: Vegetation Management and

Wildland Fire Management

Weeds/ Annual 

Grasses 

Present but Localized 

(MZ1) 

Present and Widespread

(Laramie Pop)

Present and Widespread

(Jackson Hole Pop)

Present but Localized

(Wyoming Basin Pop)

BLM: Vegetation Management,

Range Management, Wildland Fire 

Management, and Recreation 

Forest Service: Greater SageGrouse Habitat, Fire Management,

and Roads and Transportation 

Energy

Present and Widespread 

(MZ1) 

Present and Widespread

(Laramie Pop)

Not Present (Jackson Hole 

Pop)

Present and Widespread

(Wyoming Basin Pop)

BLM: Lands and Realty and Fluid 

Minerals 

Forest Service: Lands and Realty

and Fluid Minerals 

Fire

Present but Localized 

(MZ1) 

Present and Widespread

(Laramie Pop)

Present but Localized

(Jackson Hole Pop)

Present but Localized

(Wyoming Basin Pop)

BLM: Wildland Fire Management 

Forest Service: Fire Management

D-6 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Appendix D

COT Threat Threat Extent Program Area

LUP 

Amendments

Decision

Implementation Process Tracking 

Mechanism

Grazing

Range 

Management 

Structures

Present and Widespread 

(MZ1)

Present and Widespread

(Laramie Pop)

Not Present (Jackson Hole 

Pop)

Present and Widespread

(Wyoming Basin Pop)

BLM: Range Management, Wild

Horse and Burro Management,

Special Status Species, and

Vegetation Management

Forest Service: Livestock Grazing

Free-Roaming 

Equids

Not Present (MZ1)

Not Present (Laramie Pop)

Not Present (Jackson Hole 

Pop)

Present but Localized

(Wyoming Basin Pop)

BLM: Wild Horse and Burro

Management

Forest Service: There is no Free

Roaming Equid Management

Direction in the Forest Service plan

amendments.

Conifer 

Encroachment

Present but Localized 

(MZ1)

Present and Widespread

(Laramie Pop)

Present but Localized

(Jackson Hole Pop)

Present but Localized

(Wyoming Basin Pop)

BLM: Wildland Fire Management and

Vegetation Management

Forest Service: Fire Management

and GRSG Habitat

Agriculture and 

Urbanization

Present but Localized 

(MZ1)

Present and Widespread

(Laramie Pop)

Present but Localized

(Jackson Hole Pop)

Present but Localized

(Wyoming Basin Pop)

BLM: Lands and Realty

Forest Service: Lands and

Realty/Land Ownership Adjustments

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-7
Appendix D Final EIS

COT Threat Threat Extent Program Area

LUP 

Amendments

Decision

Implementation Process Tracking 

Mechanism

Mining

Present and Widespread 

(MZ1)

Unknown (Laramie Pop)

Not Present (Jackson Hole 

Pop)

Present but Localized

(Wyoming Basin Pop)

BLM: Lands and Realty, Locatable

Minerals, Salable Minerals, and Nonenergy Leasable Minerals

Forest Service: Coal Mines,

Locatable Minerals, Non-energy

Leasable Minerals, and Mineral

Materials

Recreation

Present and Widespread 

(MZ1)

Present and Widespread

(Laramie Pop)

Present and Widespread

(Jackson Hole Pop)

Present and Widespread

(Wyoming Basin Pop)

BLM: Recreation and Trails and

Travel Management

Forest Service: Recreation and

Roads/Transportation

Infrastructure

Present and Widespread 

(MZ1)

Present and Widespread

(Laramie Pop)

Not Present (Jackson Hole 

Pop)

Present and Widespread

(Wyoming Basin Pop)

BLM: Lands and Realty and Trails

and Travel Management 

Forest Service: Infrastructure, Lands

and Realty and

Roads/Transportation

D-8 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment
Final EIS Appendix D

Step 1 – Determine Proposal Adequacy

This screening process is initiated upon formal submittal of a proposal for authorization for use of BLM/Forest 

Service lands. The actual documentation of the proposal would include at a minimum a description of the 

location, scale of the project and timing of the disturbance. The acceptance of the proposal(s) for review would 

be consistent with existing protocol and procedures for each type of use. Evaluating consistency with (at a 

minimum) state sage-grouse regulations

Step 2 – Evaluate Proposal Consistency with LUP 

Step 2.1 –The proposal will be reviewed to determine whether it would be allowed as prescribed in the LUP 

Amendments. For example, some activities or types of development are prohibited in sage-grouse habitat, 

such as wind developments in priority habitat. Evaluation of projects will also include an assessment of the 

current state of the adaptive management hard and soft triggers. If the proposal is for an activity that is 

specifically prohibited, the applicant should be informed that the application is being rejected since it would 

not be allowed, regardless of the design of the project.

Step 2.2 –The proposal will be reviewed to determine whether it conforms with the Density and Disturbance 

Limitations. If the proposed activity occurs within a priority habitat management area (PHMA), evaluate 

whether the disturbance from the activity exceeds the limit on the amount of disturbance allowed within the 

activity or project area (Density/Disturbance Calculation Tool [DDCT] process). If current disturbance within 

the activity area or the anticipated disturbance from the proposed activity exceeds this threshold, the project 

would be deferred until such time as the amount of disturbance within the area has been reduced below the 

threshold, redesigned so as to not result in any additional surface disturbance (collocation) or redesigned to 

move it outside of PHMA. Should the project be a result of a valid existing right, BLM will work to minimize 

the disturbance and determine any residual impacts that may require appropriate mitigation.

The maximum density of disruptive activities and surface disturbance allowed will be analyzed via the DDCT, 

and will be conducted by the Federal Land Management Agency on federal land and the project proponent on 

non-federal (private, state) land based on the LUP Amendments.

State agency permit is needed, without a need for a federal permit:

The first point of contact for addressing sage-grouse issues for any state permit application should be the 

WGFD. Project proponents (proponents) need to have a thorough description of their project and identify the 

potential effects on sage-grouse prior to submitting an application to the permitting agency. Project proponents 

should contact WGFD at least 45-60 days prior to submitting their application. More complex projects will 

require more time. It is understood that WGFD has a role of consultation, recommendation, and facilitation, 

and has no authority to either approve or deny the project. The purpose of the initial consultation with the 

WGFD is to become familiar with the project proposal and ensure the project proponent understands the 

DDCT and recommended stipulations.

Federal agency permit is needed, with or without a state permit:

When a project requires federal action prior to approval, the proponent should contact the federal agency 

responsible for reviewing the action. The federal agency and the proponent will determine the best process for 

completing the DDCT and receiving recommendations from WGFD. Project proponents (proponents) need to 

have a thorough description of their project and identify the potential effects on sage-grouse prior to submitting 

an application to the permitting agency.

Maximum Density and Disturbance Process

Density and Disturbance Calculation: The DDCT is a spatially based tool that calculates both the average 

density of disruptive activities and total surface disturbance within the area affected by the project, or DDCT 

assessment area. The DDCT assessment area is created based on buffers around proposed projects (first buffer) 

in protected sage-grouse core areas, and subsequent buffers around any occupied, core area leks within the 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-9
Appendix D Final EIS 

first buffer. A four mile buffer is used to identify 75% of the sage-grouse use around a lek. All activities will 

be evaluated within the context of maximum allowable disturbance (disturbance percentages, location and 

number of disturbances) of suitable sage-grouse habitat (See Appendix 1 for definition of suitable sage-grouse 

habitat and disturbance of suitable sage-grouse habitat) within the DDCT assessment area. This tool allows 

for better siting of projects rather than averaging the density/disturbance calculation per section.

All lands within core area boundaries are is considered suitable habitat unless documented. Mapped unsuitable 

habitat is treated neither as suitable habitat, nor disturbance, which results in the area being removed from the 

DDCT assessment area altogether. 

1. Density/Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT): Determine all occupied leks within a core 

population area that may be affected by the project by placing a 4 mile boundary around the 

project boundary (as defined by the proposed area of disturbance related to the project). All 

occupied leks located within the 4 mile boundary and within a core population area will be 

considered in this assessment. 

A four-mile boundary will then be placed around the perimeter of each of these lek(s).

D-10 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Appendix D

The core population area within the combined 4 mile buffer around both the leks and the 

project boundary creates the DDCT assessment area for each individual project. 

Disturbance will be analyzed for the DDCT assessment area as a whole and for each individual 

lek within the DDCT assessment area. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-11 
Appendix D Final EIS 

Density of disruptive features will be analyzed for the DDCT assessment area as a whole and 

for each individual lek within the DDCT assessment area.

D-12 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Appendix D

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-13 
Appendix D Final EIS 

If there are no leks identified for this assessment within the 4 mile boundary around the project 

boundary, the DDCT assessment area will be that portion of the 4 mile project boundary within 

the core population area.

2. Density and Disturbance analysis: The total number of discrete disruptive activity features, as 

well as the total disturbance acres within the DDCT assessment area will be determined through 

an evaluation of:

a. Existing disturbance (sage-grouse habitat that is disturbed due to existing anthropogenic 

activity and wildfire).

b. Approved permits (that have approval for on the ground activity) not yet implemented.

c. Validating digitized disturbance through on the ground evaluation.

The complete analysis package (DDCT results, mapbook, and Worksheet), and recommendations developed 

by consultation and review outlined herein will be forwarded to the appropriate permitting agency(s). WGFD 

recommendations will be included, as will other recommendations from project proponents and other 

appropriate agencies. Project proponent shall have access to all information used in developing 

recommendations. Where possible and when requested by the project proponent, state agencies shall provide 

the project proponent with potential development alternatives other than those contained in the project 

proposal.

If the permit for which a proponent has applied expires, another DDCT analysis is required before issuing a 

new permit. An additional DDCT is not required for permit extensions or renewals when no changes are being 

authorized. Any project will need to comply with the current Executive Order.

Step 2.3 – The BLM/Forest Service’s goal for any new activity or development proposal within core areas is 

to provide consistent implementation of project proposals which meet the BLM’s LUP Amendments goals 

and the population management objectives of the state. Activities would be consistent with the strategy where 

it can be sufficiently demonstrated that no declines to core populations would be expected as a result of the 

proposed action. Published research suggests that impacts to sage-grouse leks associated primarily with 

infrastructure and energy development are discernible at a distance of at least 4 miles and that many leks 

within this radius have been extirpated as a direct result of development (Walker et al. 2007, Walker 2008).

Research also suggests that an evaluation of habitats and sage-grouse populations that attend leks within an 

11-mile radius from the project boundary in the context of “large” projects may be appropriate in order to 

consider all seasonal habitats that may be affected for birds that use the habitats associated with the proposal 

during some portion of the life-cycle of seasonally migratory sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 2000). 

To determine the manner in which Greater Sage-Grouse may be impacted by proposed undertakings, the 

following will be reviewed in the site specific NEPA analysis to quantify the effects: 

• Greater Sage-Grouse habitat delineation maps.

• Current science recommendations.

• The ‘Base Line Environment Report’ (USGS) which identifies areas of direct and indirect effect for 

various anthropogenic activities.

• Consultation with agency or state wildlife agency biologist.

• Other methods needed to provide an accurate assessment of impacts.

D-14 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Appendix D

If the proposal will not have a direct or indirect impact on either the habitat or population, document the 

findings in the NEPA and proceed with the appropriate process for review, decision and implementation of 

the project.

Step 3 – Apply Avoidance and Minimization Measures to Comply with Sage-Grouse 

Goals and Objectives

If the project can be relocated so as to not have an impact on sage-grouse and still achieve objectives of the 

proposal and the disturbance limitations, relocate the proposed activity and proceed with the appropriate 

process for review, decision and implementation (NEPA and Decision Record). This Step does not consider 

redesign of the project to reduce or eliminate direct and indirect impacts, but rather authorization of the project 

in a physical location that will not impact Greater Sage-Grouse. If the preliminary review of the proposal 

concludes that there may be adverse impacts to sage-grouse habitat or populations in Step 2 and the project 

cannot be effectively relocated to avoid these impacts, proceed with the appropriate process for review, 

decision and implementation (NEPA and Decision Record) with the inclusion of appropriate mitigation 

requirements to further reduce or eliminate impacts to sage-grouse habitat and populations and achieve 

compliance with sage-grouse objectives. Mitigation measures could include design modifications of the 

proposal, site disturbance restoration, post project reclamation, etc. Compensatory or offsite mitigation may 

be required (Step 4) in situations where residual impacts remain after application of all avoidance and 

minimization measures. 

Step 4 – Apply Compensatory Mitigation or Reject / Defer Proposal

If screening of the proposal has determined that direct and indirect impacts cannot be eliminated through 

avoidance or minimization, evaluate the proposal to determine if compensatory mitigation can be used to 

offset the remaining adverse impacts and achieve sage-grouse goals and objectives. If the impacts cannot be 

effectively mitigated, reject or defer the proposal. The criteria for determining this situation could include but 

are not limited to:

• The current trend within the priority habitat is down and additional impacts, whether mitigated or not, 

could lead to further decline of the species or habitat.

• The proposed mitigation is inadequate in scope or duration, has proven to be ineffective or is unproven 

is terms of science based approach. 

• The project would impact habitat that has been determined to be a limiting factor for species 

sustainability.

• Other site specific information and analysis that determined the project would lead to a downward 

change of the current species population or habitat and not comply with sage-grouse goals and 

objectives.

If, following application of available impact avoidance and minimization measures, the project can be 

mitigated to fully offset impacts and assure conservation gain to the species and comply with sage-grouse 

goals and objectives, proceed with the appropriate process for review, decision and implementation (NEPA 

and Decision Record). 

Mitigation

General

In undertaking BLM/Forest Service management actions, and, consistent with valid existing rights and 

applicable law, in authorizing third party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation, the BLM/Forest 

Service will require and assure mitigation that provides a net conservation gain to the species including 

accounting for any uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of such mitigation. This will be achieved by 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-15
Appendix D Final EIS

avoiding, minimizing, and compensating for impacts by applying beneficial mitigation actions. Mitigation 

will follow the regulations from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1508.20; 

e.g. avoid, minimize, and compensate), hereafter referred to as the mitigation hierarchy. If impacts from 

BLM/Forest Service management actions and authorized third party actions that result in habitat loss and 

degradation remain after applying avoidance and minimization measures (i.e. residual impacts), then 

compensatory mitigation projects will be used to provide a net conservation gain to the species. Any 

compensatory mitigation will be durable, timely, and in addition to that which would have resulted without 

the compensatory mitigation (see glossary).

The BLM/Forest Service, via the WAFWA Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team, will 

develop a WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy that will inform the NEPA decision 

making process including the application of the mitigation hierarchy for BLM/Forest Service management 

actions and third party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation. A robust and transparent Regional 

Mitigation Strategy will contribute to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat conservation by reducing, eliminating, or 

minimizing threats and compensating for residual impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat.

The BLM’s Regional Mitigation Manual MS-1794 serves as a framework for developing and implementing a 

Regional Mitigation Strategy. The following sections provide additional guidance specific to the development 

and implementation of a WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy. 

Developing a WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy

The BLM/Forest Service, via the WAFWA Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team, will 

develop a WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy to guide the application of the mitigation 

hierarchy for BLM/Forest Service management actions and third party actions that result in habitat loss and 

degradation. The strategy should consider any state-level Greater Sage-Grouse mitigation guidance that is 

consistent with the requirements identified in this Appendix. The Regional Mitigation Strategy should be 

developed in a transparent manner, based on the best science available and standardized metrics. 

As described in Chapter 2, the BLM/Forest Service will establish a WAFWA Management Zone Greater SageGrouse Conservation Team (hereafter, Team) to help guide the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse, within 

90 days of the issuance of the Record of Decision. The Strategy will be developed within one year of the 

issuance of the Record of Decision.

The Regional Mitigation Strategy should include mitigation guidance on avoidance, minimization, and 

compensation, as follows:

• Avoidance

– Include avoidance areas (e.g. right-of-way avoidance/exclusion areas, no surface occupancy 

areas) already included in laws, regulations, policies, and/or land use plans (e.g. RMPs, LRMPs, 

state plans); and,

– Include any potential, additional avoidance actions (e.g. additional avoidance best management 

practices) with regard to Greater Sage-Grouse conservation.

• Minimization

– Include minimization actions (e.g. required design features, best management practices) already 

included in laws, regulations, policies, land use plans, and/or land-use authorizations; and,

– Include any potential, additional minimization actions (e.g. additional minimization best 

management practices) with regard to Greater Sage-Grouse conservation.

• Compensation

– Include discussion of impact/project valuation, compensatory mitigation options, siting, 

compensatory project types and costs, monitoring, reporting, and program administration. Each 

of these topics is discussed in more detail below.

 Residual Impact and Compensatory Mitigation Project Valuation Guidance

D-16 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment
Final EIS Appendix D

o A common standardized method should be identified for estimating the value of the 

residual impacts and value of the compensatory mitigation projects, including accounting 

for any uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of the projects. 

o This method should consider the quality of habitat, scarcity of the habitat, and the size of 

the impact/project.

o For compensatory mitigation projects, consideration of durability (see glossary), 

timeliness (see glossary), and the potential for failure (e.g. uncertainty associated with 

effectiveness) may require an upward adjustment of the valuation.

o The resultant compensatory mitigation project will, after application of the above 

guidance, result in proactive conservation measures for Greater Sage-Grouse (consistent 

with BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management, section .02).

 Compensatory Mitigation Options

o Options for implementing compensatory mitigation should be identified, such as:

- Utilizing certified mitigation/conservation bank or credit exchanges.

- Contributing to an existing mitigation/conservation fund.

- Authorized-user conducted mitigation projects.

o For any compensatory mitigation project, the investment must be additional (i.e. 

additionality: the conservation benefits of compensatory mitigation are demonstrably new 

and would not have resulted without the compensatory mitigation project).

 Compensatory Mitigation Siting

o Sites should be in areas that have the potential to yield a net conservation gain to the 

Greater Sage-Grouse, regardless of land ownership.

o Sites should be durable (see glossary).

o Sites identified by existing plans and strategies (e.g. fire restoration plans, invasive 

species strategies, healthy land focal areas) should be considered, if those sites have the 

potential to yield a net conservation gain to Greater Sage-Grouse and are durable. 

 Compensatory Mitigation Project Types and Costs

o Project types should be identified that help reduce threats to Greater Sage-Grouse (e.g. 

protection, conservation, and restoration projects).

o Each project type should have a goal and measurable objectives.

o Each project type should have associated monitoring and maintenance requirements, for 

the duration of the impact.

o To inform contributions to a mitigation/conservation fund, expected costs for these 

project types (and their monitoring and maintenance), within the WAFWA Management 

Zone, should be identified.

 Compensatory Mitigation Compliance and Monitoring

o Mitigation projects should be inspected to ensure they are implemented as designed, and 

if not, there should be methods to enforce compliance.

o Mitigation projects should be monitored to ensure that the goals and objectives are met 

and that the benefits are effective for the duration of the impact.

 Compensatory Mitigation Reporting

o Standardized, transparent, scalable, and scientifically-defensible reporting requirements 

should be identified for mitigation projects.

o Reports should be compiled, summarized, and reviewed in the WAFWA Management 

Zone in order to determine if Greater Sage-Grouse conservation has been achieved and/or 

to support adaptive management recommendations.

 Compensatory Mitigation Program Implementation Guidelines

o Guidelines for implementing the state-level compensatory mitigation program should 

include holding and applying compensatory mitigation funds, operating a transparent and 

credible accounting system, certifying mitigation credits, and managing reporting 

requirements.

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-17
Appendix D Final EIS 

Incorporating the Regional Mitigation Strategy into NEPA Analyses

The BLM/Forest Service will include the avoidance, minimization, and compensatory recommendations from 

the Regional Mitigation Strategy in one or more of the NEPA analysis’ alternatives for BLM/Forest Service

management actions and third party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation and the appropriate 

mitigation actions will be carried forward into the decision.

Implementing a Compensatory Mitigation Program

The BLM/Forest Service need to ensure that compensatory mitigation is strategically implemented to provide 

a net conservation gain to the species, as identified in the Regional Mitigation Strategy. In order to align with 

existing compensatory mitigation efforts, this compensatory mitigation program will be managed at a statelevel (as opposed to a WAFWA Management Zone, a Field Office, or a Forest), in collaboration with our 

partners (e.g. federal, Tribal, and state agencies). 

To ensure transparent and effective management of the compensatory mitigation funds, the BLM/Forest 

Service will enter into a contract or agreement with a third-party to help manage the state-level compensatory 

mitigation funds, within one year of the issuance of the Record of Decision. The selection of the third-party 

compensatory mitigation administrator will conform to all relevant laws, regulations, and policies. The 

BLM/Forest Service will remain responsible for making decisions that affect Federal lands.

D-18 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Appendix D

COT OBJECTIVE 2: IMPLEMENT TARGETED HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

AND RESTORATION

“Some sage-grouse populations warrant more than the amelioration of the impacts from 

stressors to maintain sage-grouse on the landscape. In these instances, and particularly with 

impacts resulting from wildfire, it may be critical to not only remove or reduce anthropogenic 

threats to these populations but additionally to improve population health through active 

habitat management (e.g. habitat restoration). This is particularly important for those 

populations that are essential to maintaining range-wide redundancy and representation.” 

(COT report 2013)

In many areas of Wyoming, amelioration of threats isn’t enough. Activities must be taken to enhance the 

habitat for continued success of Greater Sage-Grouse. This objective identifies the areas where LUP 

Amendments will put forth the commitments for habitat restoration and enhancement.

The WGFD established local Greater Sage-Grouse working groups over 10 years ago. Each of these local 

working groups developed conservation plans which have served to guide conservation of Greater SageGrouse habitat at a local level. The management objectives for this federal land use plan were developed in 

coordination with the State of Wyoming, recognizing the ongoing work which has been done over the last 10 

years in Wyoming as a result of the conservation efforts identified by each of the local working groups.

Upon completion of the planning process, with issuance of an Approved Plan and Record of Decision, 

subsequent implementation decisions will be put into effect by developing implementation (activity-level or 

project-specific) plans. These implementation decisions will be based upon the objectives identified in the 

Approved Plan and Record of Decisions, and will be coordinated with local working groups.

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-19
Appendix D Final EIS

COT OBJECTIVE 3: DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT STATE AND FEDERAL 

CONSERVATION STRATEGIES AND ASSOCIATED INCENTIVE-BASED 

CONSERVATION ACTIONS AND REGULATORY MECHANISMS.

“To conserve sage-grouse and habitat redundancy, representation, and resilience, state and 

federal agencies, along with interested stakeholders within range of the sage-grouse should 

work together to develop a plan, including any necessary regulatory or legal tools (or use an 

existing plan, if appropriate) that includes clear mechanisms for addressing the threats to 

sage-grouse within PACs. Where consistent with state conservation plans, sage-grouse 

habitats outside of PACs should also be addressed. We recognize that threats can be 

ameliorated through a variety of tools within the purview of states and federal agencies, 

including incentive-based conservation actions or regulatory mechanisms. Federal land 

management agencies should work with states in developing adequate regulatory 

mechanisms. Federal land management agencies should also contribute to the incentivebased conservation and habitat restoration and rehabilitation efforts. In the development of 

conservation plans, entities (states, federal land management agencies, etc.) should 

coordinate with USFWS. This will ensure that the plans address the threats contributing to 

the 2010 warranted but precluded determination, and that conservation strategies will 

meaningfully contribute to future listing analyses.” (COT report 2013)

Implementation Working Groups

Implementation strategies for a landscape scale species requires coordination across multiple scales, as the 

work that is conducted at the local scale must be tracked and evaluated for overall success within core areas, 

the state of Wyoming across the region. As the Greater Sage-Grouse is formally managed by the State of 

Wyoming, and has a statewide strategy through Governor’s Executive Order 2011-05, implementation must 

be evaluated at that scale as well. For this reason, Wyoming Plans will utilize multiple types of working 

groups, representing each of the scales at which implementation will be tracked.

National Level

In December 2011, Wyoming Governor Matt Mead and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar co-hosted a 

meeting to address coordinated conservation of the sage-grouse across its range. Ten states within the range 

of the sage-grouse were represented, as were the Forest Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS), and the Department of the Interior (DOI) — including representatives from the BLM and USFWS. 

The primary outcome of the meeting was the creation of a Sage-Grouse Task Force (Task Force) chaired by 

Governors Mead (Wyoming) and Hickenlooper (Colorado) and the Director of the BLM. The Task Force was 

directed to develop recommendations on how to best advance a coordinated, multi-state, range-wide effort to 

conserve the sage-grouse, including the identification of conservation objectives to ensure the long-term 

viability of the species.

Regional Level

Regional Level Teams (Sage-grouse Implementation Group)

State Level

The Sage-grouse Implementation Team (SGIT) has been established through Wyoming Legislature

(Wyoming Statute 9-19-101(a)) to review data and make recommendations to the Governor of Wyoming 

regarding actions and funding to enhance and restore Greater Sage-Grouse habitats in Wyoming. Additionally, 

the SGIT is responsible for making recommendations to the Governor regarding regulatory actions necessary 

to maintain Greater Sage-Grouse populations and Greater Sage-Grouse habitats.

Adaptive Management Working Group (AMWG) has been established in consultation with the SGIT to 

provide appropriate guidance for agencies with the ability to affect sage-grouse populations and/or habitat 

D-20 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment
Final EIS Appendix D

through their permitting authority. The AMWG includes BLM, Forest Service, USFWS, and State of 

Wyoming.

Local Level

In 2000, a Local Working Group was established by the WGFD to develop and facilitate implementation of 

local conservation plans for the benefit of sage-grouse, their habitats, and whenever feasible, other species 

that use sagebrush habitats. This group prepared the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan 

(Wyoming Sage-Grouse Working Group 2003) to provide coordinated management and direction across the 

state. In 2004, local Greater Sage-Grouse working groups were formed to develop and implement local 

conservation plans. Eight local working groups around Wyoming have completed conservation plans, many 

of which prioritize addressing past, present, and reasonably foreseeable threats at the state and local levels, 

and prescribe management actions for private landowners to improve Greater Sage-Grouse conservation at 

the local scale, consistent with Wyoming’s Core Population Area Strategy.

Implementation Tracking 

Because the State of Wyoming continues to retain management of the species, and through implementation of 

the Executive Order, BLM Wyoming will continue to coordinate tracking of populations, disturbance and 

conservation actions.

• DDCT GIS for tracking disturbance

• Population counts

• Lek counts

• Conservation actions 

In addition to the tracking databases being maintained by the State of Wyoming, a national- Greater SageGrouse Land Use Plan Decision Monitoring and Reporting Tool is being developed to describe how the BLM 

and the Forest Service will consistently and systematically monitor and report implementation-level activity 

plans and implementation actions for all plans within the range of sage-grouse. A description of this tool for 

collection and reporting of tabular and spatially explicit data will be included in the Record of Decision or 

approved plan. The BLM and the Forest Service will provide data that can be integrated with other 

conservation efforts conducted by state and federal partners.

Public Involvement

A website where the public can quickly and easily access data concerning implementation will be developed 

and kept current on the Wyoming BLM database. Creating this website and maintaining it through the 

implementation cycle will be a vital part of implementation success. The public is welcome to provide 

implementation comments to the BLM any time during the cycle, but schedules for implementation planning 

decisions will be posted so the public can make timely comments. All Activity Plan Working Group meetings 

where recommendations are made to the BLM will be open to the public, and will provide for specific and 

helpful public involvement. This includes providing web-based information to the public prior to any Activity 

Plan Working Group meetings; such that members of the public can provide input to the working session, 

both early and mid-way through the scheduled meetings.

The state sponsored LWG and SGIT meetings are advertised and open to the public.

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-21
Appendix D Final EIS

COT OBJECTIVE 4: PROACTIVE CONSERVATION ACTIONS

“Proactive, incentive based, voluntary conservation actions (e.g. Candidate Conservation 

Agreements with Assurances, Natural Resources Conservation Service programs) should be 

developed and/or implemented by interested stakeholders and closely coordinated across the 

range of the species to ensure they are complimentary and address sage-grouse conservation 

needs and threats. These efforts need to receive full funding, including funding for necessary 

personnel.” (COT report 2013)

In addition to the conservation activities identified through implementation of the Resource Management Plan 

in coordination with the Local Working Group Conservation Plans, BLM and Forest Service will continue to 

partner with other agencies and stakeholders to identify conservation actions to benefit Greater Sage-Grouse

habitat. Actions which may occur could include Candidate Conservation Agreements (CCA) with 

accompanying Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAA) and designation of 

conservation easements.

CCAs are entered into when a potential threat to habitat is identified. BLM enters into CCAs with USFWS to 

identify potential threats and plan for conservation measures to address potential threats. The purpose of CCAs 

and the accompanying CCAAs for private lands is to prevent listing of any sensitive species under ESA.

BLM Wyoming has already entered into a statewide CCA for range management on BLM lands in Wyoming.

This CCA promotes proper livestock grazing and management through implementation of voluntary 

conservation measures and management practices that are consistent with Greater Sage-Grouse population 

management and habitat conservation objectives on BLM lands.

Conservation Easements are identified private lands with Greater Sage-Grouse habitat where the private 

landowners enter into voluntary agreements with the government to give up developmental rights which may 

adversely affect habitat. The most common way these areas may be used in Wyoming is for mitigation banks.

Allowing development within some areas of historic Greater Sage-Grouse habitat or marginal habitat will 

require appropriate mitigation. In some cases the most appropriate mitigation may be for project proponents 

to buy credits at a conservation easement, thus creating a mitigation bank. Overall, the benefit is to the Greater 

Sage-Grouse, as it reduces the overall potential for fragmented habitat by ensuring there are areas with no 

development potential which could adversely affect the viability of the species.

Sweetwater River Conservancy Habitat Conservation Bank 

The Sweetwater River Conservancy Habitat Conservation Bank is the first conservation bank established for 

Greater Sage-Grouse. Located in central Wyoming, the bank manages habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse

allowing energy development and other activities to proceed on other lands within Wyoming. A conservation 

bank is a site or suite of sites established under an agreement with the USFWS, intended to protect, and 

improve habitat for species. Credits may be purchased which result in perpetual conservation easements and 

conservation projects on the land to offset impacts occurring elsewhere. The Sweetwater River Conservancy 

Habitat Conservation Bank launched with 55,000 deeded acres of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, and could 

expand up to 700,000 acres on other lands owned by the Sweetwater River Conservancy contingent upon 

demand (USFWS 2015). 

Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative

The Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative is a long-term science based effort to assess and enhance 

aquatic and terrestrial habitats at a landscape scale in southwest Wyoming, while facilitating responsible 

development through local collaboration and partnership. Collaborative efforts address multiple concerns at a 

scale that considers all activities on the landscape, and can leverage resources that might not be available for 

single agency projects. Greater Sage-Grouse initiatives from the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative 

have included habitat enhancement efforts (e.g., invasive weed treatment, prescribed grazing strategies), and 

Greater Sage-Grouse research studies (Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative 2013).

D-22 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment
Final EIS Appendix D

Powder River Basin Restoration Program

The Powder River Basin Restoration Program is a collaborative partnership to restore and enhance Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat on a landscape level in the Powder River Basin. The basin encompasses 13,493,840 acres 

in northeast Wyoming and southeast Montana. Surface ownership is composed of approximately 70 percent 

private lands, 14 percent BLM-administered lands (including 8 percent in Wyoming and 6 percent in 

Montana), 8 percent Forest Service lands, and 8 percent States of Wyoming and Montana lands. Subsurface 

mineral ownership is 50 to 60 percent federal (BLM 2014). 

The Powder River Basin Restoration Program is focusing on areas affected by the federal oil and gas 

development that has occurred over the past decade in the Powder River Basin in northeastern Wyoming. Its 

objectives are restoring or enhancing disturbed previously suitable habitat to suitable habitat for sagebrush 

obligate species, primarily Greater Sage-Grouse. This includes multiple sites affected by coal bed natural gas 

abandonment reclamation efforts, wildfires, and noxious and invasive plants. Priority will be given to those 

areas recognized as priority habitats (e.g., core population areas and connectivity corridors). 

Habitat objectives are meeting the needs for nesting, brood-rearing, and late brood-rearing. The program 

would contribute to efforts focused on the management and control of mosquitoes carrying West Nile virus 

and would include funding, labor, treatment locations, and other needs as determined. 

Additionally, efforts would be coordinated to reduce fuels in and near Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, to enhance 

sagebrush stands, support restoration efforts, and reduce the risk of high-severity wildfire. Pine stands and 

juniper woodlands would be managed for structural diversity and to reduce fuels, especially near PHMA, 

human developments, and recreation areas.

Natural Resource Conservation Service Sage-Grouse Initiative 

The US Department of Agriculture, NRCS Sage-Grouse Initiative (SGI) is working with private landowners 

in 11 western states to improve habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse (Manier et al. 2013). With 13.5 million acres 

of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in private ownership within MZ II/VII (Manier et al. 2013, p. 118), a unique 

opportunity exists for the NRCS to benefit Greater Sage-Grouse and to ensure the persistence of large and 

intact rangelands by implementing the SGI. 

Participation in the SGI program is voluntary, but willing participants enter into binding contracts or easements 

to ensure that conservation practices that enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, such as fence marking, 

protecting riparian areas, and maintaining vegetation in nesting areas, are implemented. Participating 

landowners are bound by a contract (usually 3 to 5 years) to implement, in consultation with NRCS staff, 

conservation practices if they wish to receive the financial incentives offered by the SGI. These financial 

incentives generally take the form of payments to offset costs of implementing conservation practices and 

easements or rental payments for long-term conservation. 

While potentially effective at conserving Greater Sage-Grouse populations and habitat on private lands, 

incentive-based conservation programs that fund the SGI generally require reauthorization from Congress 

under subsequent farm bills, meaning future funding is not guaranteed.

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-23
Appendix D Final EIS

COT OBJECTIVE 5: DEVELOPMENT OF MONITORING PLANS

“A robust range-wide monitoring program must be developed and implemented for sagegrouse conservation plans, which recognizes and incorporates individual state approaches. 

A monitoring program is necessary to track the success of conservation plans and proactive 

conservation activities. Without this information, the actual benefit of conservation activities 

cannot be measured and there is no capacity to adapt if current management actions are 

determined to be ineffective.” (COT report 2013)

The Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this BLM and Forest Service Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework (hereafter, 

monitoring framework) is to describe the methods to monitor habitats and evaluate the implementation and 

effectiveness of the BLM planning strategy (BLM IM 2012-044) and the Forest Service Land Use Plans to 

conserve the species and its habitat. The regulations for the BLM (43 CFR 1610.4-9) and the Forest Service

(36 CFR part 209, published July 1, 2010) require that land use plans establish intervals and standards, as 

appropriate, for monitoring and evaluations, based on the sensitivity of the resource to the decisions involved. 

Therefore, BLM and Forest Service will use the methods described herein to collect monitoring data to 

evaluate implementation and effectiveness of the Greater Sage-Grouse (hereafter, sage-grouse) planning 

strategy and the conservation measures contained in land use plans. The type of monitoring data to be collected 

at the land use plan scale will be described in the monitoring plan which will be developed after the signing 

of the ROD. For a summary of the frequency of reporting see Attachment A. Adaptive management will be 

informed by data collected at any and all scales.

To ensure the BLM and Forest Service have the ability to make consistent assessments about sage-grouse 

habitats across the range of the species, this framework lays out the methodology for monitoring the 

implementation and evaluating the effectiveness of BLM/Forest Service actions to conserve the species and 

its habitat through monitoring that informs effectiveness at multiple scales. Monitoring efforts will include 

data for measurable quantitative indicators of sagebrush availability, anthropogenic disturbance levels, and 

sagebrush conditions. Implementation monitoring results will provide information to allow the BLM and 

Forest Service to evaluate the extent that decisions from the BLM resource management plans (RMP) and 

Forest Service land and resource management plans (LRMP) to conserve sage-grouse and its habitat have 

been implemented. Population monitoring information will be collected by state fish and wildlife agencies 

and will be incorporated into effectiveness monitoring as it is made available.

This multi-scale monitoring approach is necessary as sage-grouse are a landscape species and conservation is 

scale-dependent whereby conservation actions are implemented within seasonal habitats to benefit 

populations. The four orders of habitat selection (Johnson 1980) used in this monitoring framework are 

described by Connelly et al. (2003) and Stiver et al. (2014) as first order (broad scale), second order (midscale), third order (fine scale), and fourth order (site scale) to apply them to sage-grouse habitat selection. The 

various scales may show differences because of the methods used. The broad and mid-scale may provide a 

generalize direction, however the suitability baseline (pre-euro) is not considered an accurate baseline. The 

current baseline will provide better information on trends provided the data used in the analysis is sound.

Based upon the management actions related to the BLM and Wyoming Sage-grouse Executive Order, the 

broad and mid-scale may greatly underestimate the impacts of the threats outlined in the COT report. Habitat 

selection and habitat use by sage-grouse occurs at multiple scales and is driven by multiple environmental and 

behavioral factors. Managing and monitoring sage-grouse habitats are complicated by the differences in 

habitat selection across the range and habitat utilization by individual birds within a given season. Therefore, 

the tendency to look at a single indicator of habitat suitability or only one scale limits the ability for managers 

to identify the threats to sage-grouse and to respond at the appropriate scale. For descriptions of these habitat 

D-24 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment
Final EIS Appendix D

suitability indicators for each scale, see the Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF) (Stiver et al. 

in press).

Monitoring methods and indicators in this monitoring framework are derived from the current peer-reviewed 

science. Range wide best-available datasets for broad and mid-scale monitoring will be acquired. If these 

exiting datasets are not readily available or are inadequate, but are necessary to effectively inform the three 

measurable quantitative indicators (sagebrush availability, anthropogenic disturbance levels, and sagebrush 

conditions), the BLM will strive to develop datasets or obtain information to fill these data gaps. Datasets that 

are not readily available to inform the fine and site scale indicators will be developed. These data will be used 

to generate monitoring reports at the appropriate and applicable geographic scales, boundaries and analysis 

units: across the range of sage-grouse as defined by Schroeder et al. (2004), and clipped by Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Management Zone (MZ) (Stiver et al. 2006) boundaries 

and other areas as appropriate for size (e.g., populations based on Connelly et al. 2004; Figure D-1). This 

broad and mid-scale monitoring data and analysis will provide context for LUP Amendments areas; states; 

Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat, general habitat and other sage-grouse designated management areas; 

and PACs as defined in the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Objectives: Final Report (COT, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2013). Throughout the remainder of the document, all of these areas will be referred to as 

“sage-grouse areas”.

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-25
Appendix D Final EIS 

Figure D-1. Map of Greater Sage-Grouse Range, Populations, Subpopulations and Priority Areas for 

Conservation as of 2013

This monitoring framework is divided into two sections. The broad- and mid-scale methods, described in the 

following section, provide a consistent approach across the range of the species to monitor implementation 

decisions and actions, mid-scale habitat attributes (e.g., sagebrush availability and habitat degradation), and 

population changes to determine the effectiveness of the planning strategy and management decisions. (See 

Table D-3, Indicators for monitoring implementation of the national planning strategy, LUP Amendments

decisions, sage-grouse habitat, and sage-grouse populations at the broad and mid scales.) For sage-grouse 

D-26 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Appendix D

habitat at the fine and site scales, this monitoring framework describes a consistent approach (e.g., indicators 

and methods) for monitoring sage-grouse seasonal habitats. Funding, support, and dedicated personnel for 

broad- and mid-scale monitoring will be renewed annually through the normal budget process. For an 

overview of BLM and Forest Service multiscale monitoring commitments, see Attachment A.

Table D-3. Indicators for Monitoring Implementation of the Strategy, Decisions, Sage-grouse Habitat, 

and Sage-grouse Populations at the Broad and Mid-scales.

Implementation Habitat

Population

(State Wildlife 

Agencies)

Geographic 

Scales Implementation

Habitat 

Availability

Habitat

Degradation 

Population (State Wildlife Agencies) 

Demographics 

Broad Scale: 

From the range of 

sage-grouse to 

WAFWA 

Management 

Zones

BLM/Forest Service

Planning Strategy goal 

and objectives 

Distribution and 

amount of sagebrush

within the range

Distribution and 

amount of energy, 

mining and 

infrastructure 

facilities

WAFWA 

Management Zone 

population trend

Mid-scale: From 

WAFWA 

Management 

Zone to 

populations. 

An analysis of LUP 

Amendments decisions 

across the designated 

scale 

Mid-scale habitat 

indicators (HAF 2014; 

Table D-4 e.g., 

percent of sagebrush 

per unit area) 

Distribution and 

amount of energy, 

mining and 

infrastructure 

facilities (Table 

D-4) 

Individual 

population trend

Fine Scale:

Pacs 

A summary of DDCT 

actions related to BLM 

mineral and surface 

resources in 

conjunction with other 

ownerships

Areas that have 

greater than 5% 

sagebrush cover and 

non-habitat 

(unsuitable) that is 

less than 0.6miles 

from the suitable 

habitat.

Distribution and 

amount of 

anthropogenic 

disturbances and 

wildfire occurrences 

impacting specific 

PACs. 

PAC Trends

Site Scale

DDCT level

A summary of DDCT 

actions related to BLM 

mineral and surface 

resources.

The available 

occupied habitat 

using the DDCT 

process. 

Distribution and 

amount of 

anthropogenic 

disturbances and 

wildfire occurrences 

impacting specific 

PACs. 

Individual lek 

Trends

Broad Scale: 

From the range of 

sage-grouse to 

WAFWA 

Management 

Zones

BLM/Forest Service

Planning Strategy goal 

and objectives 

Distribution and 

amount of sagebrush

within the range

Distribution and 

amount of energy, 

mining and 

infrastructure 

facilities

WAFWA 

Management Zone 

population trend

Mid-scale: From 

WAFWA 

Management 

Zone to 

populations. 

PACs 

LUP Amendments

decisions 

Mid-scale habitat 

indicators (HAF 2014; 

Table D-4 e.g., 

percent of sagebrush 

per unit area) 

Distribution and 

amount of energy, 

mining and 

infrastructure 

facilities (Table 

D-4) 

Individual 

population trend

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-27 
Appendix D Final EIS

Broad and Mid-Scales

First-order habitat selection, the broad scale, describes the physical or geographical range of a species. The 

first-order habitat of the sage-grouse is defined by populations of sage-grouse associated with sagebrush 

landscapes, based on Schroeder et al. 2004, and Connelly et al.

2004, and on population or habitat surveys since 2004. An intermediate scale between the broad and mid 

scales was delineated by WAFWA from floristic provinces within which similar environmental factors 

influence vegetation communities. This scale is referred to as the WAFWA Sage-Grouse Management Zones 

(MZs). Although no indicators are specific to this scale, these MZs are biologically meaningful as reporting 

units.

Second-order habitat selection, the mid-scale, includes sage-grouse populations and PACs. The second order 

includes at least 40 discrete populations and subpopulations (Connelly et al. 2004). Populations range in area 

from 150 to 60,000 mi2 and are nested within MZs. PACs range from 20 to 20,400 mi2 and are nested within 

population areas.

Other mid-scale landscape indicators, such as patch size and number, patch connectivity, linkage areas, and 

landscape matrix and edge effects (Stiver et al. in press) will also be assessed. The methods used to calculate 

these metrics will be derived from existing literature (Knick et al. 2011, Leu and Hanser 2011, Knick and 

Hanser 2011).

Midscale indicators using the HAF can grossly underestimate the occupation of anthropogenic activities 

because of the use of 30m pixels. The HAF removes ‘non-’habitat from the suitability availability. There are 

no parameters that are provided to protect adjacent suitable habitat from development on these non-habitat 

parcels, thus making the adjacent non-habitat a potential threat by indirect impacts.

The Wyoming BLM and Forest Service Offices will be actively participating in a fine and site scale monitoring 

that will more accurately reflect the impacts associated with direct and indirect effects of anthropogenic and 

wildfire impacts.

A. Implementation (Decision) Monitoring

Implementation monitoring is the process of tracking and documenting the implementation (or the progress 

toward implementation) of LUP Amendments decisions. The BLM and the Forest Service will monitor 

implementation of project-level and/or site-specific actions and authorizations, with their associated 

conditions of approval/stipulations for sage-grouse, spatially (as appropriate) within Priority Habitat, General 

Habitat, and other sage-grouse designated management areas, at a minimum, for the Wyoming Greater SageGrouse LUP Amendments planning area. These actions and authorizations, as well as progress toward 

completing and implementing activity-level plans, will be monitored consistently across all planning units and 

will be reported to BLM and Forest Service headquarters annually, as well as reported to the State of Wyoming 

with numerical and spatial data twice a year, and a HQ summary report every 5 years, for the LUP 

Amendments planning area. A national-level Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Decision Monitoring and 

Reporting Tool is being developed to describe how the BLM and the Forest Service will consistently and 

systematically monitor and report implementation-level activity plans and implementation actions for all plans 

within the range of sage-grouse. A description of this tool for collection and reporting of tabular and spatially 

explicit data will be included in the Record of Decision or approved plan. The BLM will provide data that can 

be integrated with other conservation efforts conducted by state and federal partners.

B. Habitat (Vegetation) Monitoring

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), in its 2010 listing decision for the sage-grouse, identified 18 

threats contributing to the destruction, modification, or curtailment of sage-grouse habitat or range (75 FR 

13910 2010). The BLM will, therefore, monitor the relative extent of these threats that remove sagebrush, 

both spatially and temporally, on all lands within an analysis area, and will report on amount, pattern, and 

D-28 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment
Final EIS Appendix D

condition at the appropriate and applicable geographic scales and boundaries. These 18 threats have been 

aggregated into three broad- and mid-scale measures to account for whether the threat predominantly removes 

sagebrush or degrades habitat. (See Table D-4, Relationship between the 18 threats and the three habitat 

disturbance measures for monitoring.) The three measures are:

1. Sagebrush Availability (percent of sagebrush per suitable unit area)

2. Habitat Degradation (percent of human activity per unit area) 

3. Energy and Mining Density (facilities and locations per suitable unit area)

These three habitat disturbance measures will evaluate disturbance on all lands within priority habitat, 

regardless of land ownership. The direct area of influence will be assessed with the goal of accounting for 

actual removal of sagebrush on which sage-grouse depend (Connelly et al. 2000) and for habitat degradation 

as a surrogate for human activity. Measure 1 (sagebrush availability) examines where disturbances have 

removed plant communities that support sagebrush (or have broadly removed sagebrush from the landscape). 

Measure 1, therefore, monitors the change in sagebrush availability–or, specifically, where and how much of 

the sagebrush community is available on lands that can support sagebrush within the range of sage-grouse. 

The sagebrush community is defined as the ecological systems that have the capability of supporting sagebrush 

vegetation and seasonal sage-grouse habitats within the range of sage-grouse (see Section B.1., Sagebrush 

Availability). Measure 2 (see Section B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring) and Measure 3 (see Section B.3., 

Energy and Mining Density) focus on where habitat degradation is occurring within suitable sagebrush soils 

by using the footprint/area of direct disturbance and the number of facilities at the mid-scale to identify the 

relative amount of degradation per geographic area of interest and in areas that have the capability of 

supporting sagebrush and seasonal sage-grouse use. Measure 2 (habitat degradation) not only quantifies 

footprint/area of direct disturbance but also establishes a surrogate for those threats most likely to have 

ongoing activity. Because energy development and mining activities are typically the most intensive activities 

in sagebrush habitat, Measure 3 (the density of active energy development, production, and mining sites) will 

help identify areas of particular concern for such factors as noise, dust, traffic, etc. that degrade sage-grouse 

habitat.

Table D-4. Relationship between the 18 Threats and the Three Habitat Disturbance Measures for 

Monitoring. 

USFWS Listing Decision Threat Sagebrush 

Availability

Habitat

Degradation 

Density of Energy 

and Mining 

Agriculture X

Urbanization X

Wildfire X

Conifer encroachment X

Treatments X

Invasive Species X

Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities) X X

Energy (coal mines) X X

Energy (wind towers) X X

Energy (solar fields) X X

Energy (geothermal) X X

Mining (active locatable, leasable, and salable 

developments) X X 

Infrastructure (roads) X

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-29 
Appendix D Final EIS

USFWS Listing Decision Threat Sagebrush 

Availability

Habitat

Degradation 

Density of Energy 

and Mining 

Infrastructure (railroads) X

Infrastructure (power lines) X

Infrastructure (communication towers) X

Infrastructure (other vertical structures) X

Other developed rights of ways X

Data availability may preclude specific analysis of individual layers. See the detailed methodology for more information.

The methods to monitor disturbance found herein differ slightly from methods used in the Sage-Grouse 

Baseline Environmental Report (BER; Manier et al. 2013) that provided a baseline of datasets of disturbance 

across jurisdictions. One difference is that, for some threats, the data in the BER were for federal lands only. 

In addition, threats were assessed individually in that report, using different assumptions from those in this 

monitoring framework about how to quantify the location and magnitude of threats. The methodology herein 

builds on the BER methodology and identifies datasets and procedures to utilize the best available data across 

the range of the sage-grouse and to formulate a consistent approach to quantify impact of the threats through 

time. This methodology also describes an approach to combine the threats and calculate the three measures.

B.1. Sagebrush Availability (Measure 1)

Sage-grouse populations have been found to be more resilient where a percentage of the landscape is 

maintained in sagebrush (Knick and Connelly 2011), which will be determined by sagebrush availability. 

Measure 1 has been divided into two sub-measures to describe sagebrush availability on the landscape:

• Measure 1a: the current amount of sagebrush on the geographic area of interest, and

• Measure 1b: the amount of sagebrush on the geographic area of interest compared with the amount of 

sagebrush the landscape of interest could ecologically support.

Measure 1a (the current amount of sagebrush on the landscape) will be calculated using this formula: [the 

existing updated sagebrush layer] divided by [the geographic area of interest]. The appropriate geographic 

areas of interest for sagebrush availability include the species’ range, WAFWA MZs, populations, and PACs. 

In some cases these sage-grouse areas will need to be aggregated to provide an estimate of sagebrush 

availability with an acceptable level of accuracy.

Measure 1b (the amount of sagebrush for context within the geographic area of interest) will be calculated 

using this formula: [existing sagebrush divided by [pre-EuroAmerican settlement geographic extent of lands 

that could have supported sagebrush]. This measure will provide information to set the context for a given 

geographic area of interest during evaluations of monitoring data. The information could also be used to 

inform management options for restoration or mitigation and to inform effectiveness monitoring.

The sagebrush base layer for Measure 1 will be based on geospatial vegetation data adjusted for the threats 

listed in Table D-4. The following subsections of this monitoring framework describe the methodology for 

determining both the current availability of sagebrush on the landscape and the context of the amount of 

sagebrush on the landscape at the broad and mid scales.

a. Establishing the Sagebrush Base Layer: The current geographic extent of sagebrush vegetation within 

the rangewide distribution of sage-grouse populations will be ascertained using the most recent version of the 

Existing Vegetation Type (EVT) layer in LANDFIRE (2013). LANDFIRE EVT was selected to serve as the 

sagebrush base layer for five reasons: 1) it is the only nationally consistent vegetation layer that has been 

updated multiple times since 2001; 2) the ecological systems classification within LANDFIRE EVT includes 

multiple sagebrush type classes that, when aggregated, provide a more accurate (compared with individual 

classes) and seamless sagebrush base layer across jurisdictional boundaries; 3) LANDFIRE performed a 

D-30 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment
Final EIS Appendix D

rigorous accuracy assessment from which to derive the rangewide uncertainty of the sagebrush base layer; 4) 

LANDFIRE is consistently used in several recent analyses of sagebrush habitats (Knick et al. 2011, Leu and 

Hanser 2011, Knick and Hanser 2011); and 5) LANDFIRE EVT can be compared against the geographic 

extent of lands that are believed to have had the capability of supporting sagebrush vegetation preEuroAmerican settlement [LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting (BpS)]. This fifth reason provides a reference 

point for understanding how much sagebrush currently remains in a defined geographic area of interest 

compared with how much sagebrush existed historically (Measure 1b). Therefore, the BLM and the Forest 

Service have determined that LANDFIRE provides the best available data at broad and mid scales to serve as 

a sagebrush base layer for monitoring changes in the geographic extent of sagebrush. The BLM and the Forest 

Service, in addition to aggregating the sagebrush types into the sagebrush base layer, will aggregate the 

accuracy assessment reports from LANDFIRE to document the cumulative accuracy for the sagebrush base 

layer. The BLM-through its Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) program and, specifically, the 

BLM’s landscape monitoring framework (Taylor et al. 2014)-will provide field data to the LANDFIRE 

program to support continuous quality improvements of the LANDFIRE EVT layer. The sagebrush layer 

based on LANDFIRE EVT will allow for the mid-scale estimation of the existing percent of sagebrush across 

a variety of reporting units. This sagebrush base layer will be adjusted by changes in land cover and successful 

restoration for future calculations of sagebrush availability (Measures 1a and 1b).

This layer will also be used to determine the trend in other landscape indicators, such as patch size and number, 

patch connectivity, linkage areas, and landscape matrix and edge effects (Stiver et al. in press). In the future, 

changes in sagebrush availability, generated annually, will be included in the sagebrush base layer. The 

landscape metrics will be recalculated to examine changes in pattern and abundance of sagebrush at the various 

geographic boundaries. This information will be included in effectiveness monitoring (See Section D., 

Effectiveness Monitoring).

Within the BLM, field office–wide existing vegetation classification mapping and inventories are available 

that provide a much finer level of data than what is provided through LANDFIRE. Where available, these 

finer-scale products will be useful for additional and complementary mid-scale indicators and local-scale 

analyses (Fine and Site Scales). The fact that these products are not available everywhere limits their utility 

for monitoring at the broad and mid-scale, where consistency of data products is necessary across broader 

geographies.

The sagebrush layer based on LANDFIRE EVT will allow for the mid-scale estimation of existing percent 

sagebrush across a variety of reporting units. This sagebrush base layer will be adjusted by changes in land 

cover and successful restoration for future calculations of sagebrush availability (Measures 1a and 1b).

This layer will be used to determine the trend in other landscape indicators, e.g. patch size and number, patch 

connectivity, linkage areas, and landscape matrix and edge effects (Stiver et al. in press). In the future, changes 

in sagebrush availability, generated bi-annually, will be included in the sagebrush base layer. The landscape 

metrics will be recalculated to examine changes in pattern and abundance of sagebrush at the various 

geographic boundaries. This information will be included in effectiveness monitoring (See Section D).

Data Sources for Establishing and Monitoring Sagebrush Availability

In much the same manner as how the LANDFIRE data was selected as the data source, described above, the 

criteria for selecting the datasets (Table D-5) for establishing and monitoring the change in sagebrush 

availability, Measure 1, were threefold:

• Nationally consistent dataset available across the range

• Known level of confidence or accuracy in the dataset

• Continual maintenance of dataset and known update interval

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-31
Appendix D Final EIS 

Table D-5. Datasets for Establishing and Monitoring Changes in Sagebrush Availability

Dataset Source Update Interval Most Recent 

Version Year Use

BioPhysical Setting 

(BpS) v1.1

LANDFIRE Static 2008 Denominator for 

Sagebrush 

Availability (1.b.)

Existing Vegetation 

Type (EVT) v1.2

LANDFIRE Static 2010 Numerator for

Sagebrush 

Availability 

Cropland Data 

Layer (CDL)

National Agricultural 

Statistics Service 

(NASS) 

Annual 2012 Agricultural 

Updates; removes 

existing sagebrush 

from numerator of 

sagebrush 

availability

National Land 

Cover Dataset 

(NLCD) Percent 

Imperviousness

Multi-Resolution 

Land 

Characteristics 

Consortium (MRLC)

5 Year 2011 available in 

March 2014

Urban Area 

Updates; removes 

existing sagebrush 

from numerator of 

sagebrush 

availability

Fire Perimeters GeoMac Annual 2013 < 1,000 acres Fire 

updates; removes 

existing sagebrush 

from numerator of 

sagebrush 

availability 

Burn Severity Monitoring Trends 

in Burn Severity 

(MTBS) 

Annual 2012 available in 

April 2014

> 1,000 acres Fire 

Updates; removes 

existing sagebrush 

from numerator of 

sagebrush 

availability except 

for unburned 

sagebrush islands

LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type (EVT) Version 1.2: 

LANDFIRE EVT represents existing vegetation types on the landscape derived from remote sensing data. 

Initial mapping was conducted using imagery collected in approximately 2001. Since the initial mapping there 

have been two update efforts: version 1.1 represents changes before 2008, and version 1.2 reflects changes on 

the landscape before 2010. Version 1.2 will be used as the starting point to develop the sagebrush base layer.

Ecological systems from the LANDFIRE EVT to be used in the sagebrush base layer were determined by 

sage-grouse subject matter experts through the identification of the ecological systems that have the capability 

of supporting sagebrush vegetation and could provide suitable seasonal habitat for the sage-grouse (Table 

D-6). Two additional vegetation types that are not ecological systems were added to the EVT and are Artemisia 

tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance and Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance. These alliances have 

species composition directly related to the Rocky Mountain Lower Montane - Foothill Shrubland ecological 

system and the Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland ecological system, both of which 

are ecological systems in LANDFIRE BpS. In LANDFIRE EVT however, in some map zones, the Rocky 

Mountain Lower Montane - Foothill Shrubland ecological system and the Rocky Mountain Gambel OakMixed Montane Shrubland ecological system were named Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland 

Alliance and Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance respectively.

D-32 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Appendix D

Table D-6. Ecological Systems in BpS and EVT Capable of Supporting Sagebrush Vegetation and 

Could Provide Suitable Seasonal Habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Ecological System Sagebrush Vegetation that the Ecological System 

has the Capability to Produce

Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush 

Shrubland

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba 

Artemisia bigelovii 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia frigida 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Columbia Plateau Scabland Shrubland Artemisia rigida 

Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longicaulis 

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. xericensis 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia spinescens 

Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland 

and Steppe

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia tripartita ssp. rupicola 

Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba 

Artemisia nova 

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe

Artemisia cana ssp. cana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. xericensis 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia tripartita ssp. tripartita 

Artemisia frigida 

Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. spiciformis 

Northwestern Great Plains Mixed grass Prairie

Artemisia cana ssp. cana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. 

vaseyana Artemisia frigida 

Northwestern Great Plains Shrubland

Artemisia cana ssp. cana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Western Great Plains Sand Prairie Artemisia cana ssp. cana 

Western Great Plains Floodplain Systems Artemisia cana ssp. cana 

Columbia Plateau Steppe and Grassland Artemisia spp. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-33 
Appendix D Final EIS 

Ecological System Sagebrush Vegetation that the Ecological System 

has the Capability to Produce

Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert ShrubSteppe

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia bigelovii 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill 

Shrubland

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia frigida 

Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane 

Shrubland Artemisia tridentata 

Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-Leaf Mountain 

Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland

Artemisia tridentata ssp. 

vaseyana Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Shrubland Alliance (EVT only) Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance (EVT only) Artemisia tridentata

Accuracy and Appropriate Use of LANDFIRE Datasets: 

Because of concerns over the thematic accuracy of individual classes mapped by LANDFIRE, all ecological 

systems listed in Table D-6 will be merged into one value that represents the sagebrush base layer. With all 

ecological systems aggregated, the combined accuracy of the sagebrush base layer (EVT) will be much greater 

than if all categories were treated separately.

LANDFIRE performed the original accuracy assessment of their EVT product on a map zone basis. There are 

20 LANDFIRE map zones that cover the historic range of sage-grouse as defined by Schroeder (2004).

Attachment C lists the user and producer accuracies for the aggregated ecological systems that make up the 

sagebrush base layer and also defines user and producer accuracies. The aggregated sagebrush base layer for 

monitoring had producer accuracies ranging from 56.7% to 100% and user accuracies ranging from 57.1% to 

85.7%.

LANDFIRE EVT data are not designed to be used at a local level. In reports of the percent sagebrush statistic 

for the various reporting units (Measure 1a), the uncertainty of the percent sagebrush will increase as the size 

of the reporting unit gets smaller. LANDFIRE data should never be used at the 30m pixel level (900m2 

resolution of raster data) for any reporting. The smallest geographic extent for using the data to determine 

percent sagebrush is at the PAC level; for the smallest PACs, the initial percent sagebrush estimate will have 

greater uncertainties compared with the much larger PACs.

Agricultural Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer: The dataset for the geographic extent of agricultural 

lands will come from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Cropland Data Layer (CDL) 

(http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/Release/index.htm). CDL data are generated annually, with 

estimated producer accuracies for “large area row crops ranging from the mid 80% to mid-90%,” depending 

on the state (http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/ Cropland/sarsfaqs2.htm#Section3_18.0). Specific 

information on accuracy may be found on the NASS metadata website 

(http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/metadata/meta.htm). CDL provided the only dataset that 

matches the three criteria (nationally consistent, known level of accuracy, and periodically updated) for use in 

this monitoring framework and represents the best available agricultural lands mapping product.

The CDL data contain both agricultural classes and nonagricultural classes. For this effort, and in the baseline 

environmental report (Manier et al. 2013), nonagricultural classes were removed from the original dataset. 

The excluded classes are:

D-34 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Appendix D

Barren (65 & 131), Deciduous Forest (141), Developed/High Intensity (124), Developed/Low Intensity

(122), Developed/Med Intensity (123), Developed/Open Space (121), Evergreen Forest (142), Grassland 

Herbaceous (171), Herbaceous Wetlands (195), Mixed Forest (143), Open Water (83 & 111), Other 

Hay/Non Alfalfa (37), Pasture/Hay (181), Pasture/Grass (62), Perennial Ice/Snow (112), Shrubland (64 

& 152), Woody Wetlands (190).

The rule set for adjusting the sagebrush base layer for agricultural lands (and for updating the base layer for 

agricultural lands in the future) is that once an area is classified as agriculture in any year of the CDL, those 

pixels will remain out of the sagebrush base layer even if a new version of the CDL classifies that pixel as one 

of the nonagricultural classes listed above. The assumption is that even though individual pixels may be 

classified as a nonagricultural class in any given year, the pixel has not necessarily been restored to a natural 

sagebrush community that would be included in Table D-6. A further assumption is that once an area has 

moved into agricultural use, it is unlikely that the area would be restored to sagebrush. Should that occur, 

however, the method and criteria for adding pixels back into the sagebrush base layer would follow those 

found in the sagebrush restoration monitoring section of this monitoring framework 

Urban Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer

The National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) Percent Imperviousness was selected as the best available dataset 

to be used for urban updates. These data are generated on a five-year cycle and specifically designed to support 

monitoring efforts. Other datasets were evaluated and lacked the spatial specificity that was captured in the 

NLCD product. Any new impervious pixel will be removed from the sagebrush base layer during the update 

process. Although the impervious surface layer includes a number of impervious pixels outside of urban areas, 

there are two reasons why this is acceptable for this process. First, an evaluation of national urban area datasets 

did not reveal a layer that could be confidently used in conjunction with the NLCD product to screen 

impervious pixels outside of urban zones because unincorporated urban areas were not being included thus 

leaving large chunks of urban pixels unaccounted for in this rule set. Secondly, experimentation with setting 

a threshold on the percent imperviousness layer that would isolate rural features proved to be unsuccessful.

No combination of values could be identified that would result in the consistent ability to limit impervious 

pixels outside urban areas. Therefore, to ensure consistency in the monitoring estimates, it was determined to 

include all impervious pixels.

Fire Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer: 

Two datasets were selected for performing fire adjustments and updates: GeoMac fire perimeters and 

Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS). An existing data standard in the BLM requires that all fires of 

more than 10 acres are to be reported to GeoMac; therefore, there will be many small fires of less than 10 

acres that will not be accounted for in the adjustment and monitoring attributable to fire. Using fire perimeters 

from GeoMac, all sagebrush pixels falling within the perimeter of fires less than 1,000 acres will be used to 

adjust and monitor the sagebrush base layer.

For fires greater than 1,000 acres, MTBS was selected as a means to account for unburned sagebrush islands 

during the update process of the sagebrush base layer. The MTBS program (http://www.mtbs.gov) is an 

ongoing, multiyear project to map fire severity and fire perimeters consistently across the United States. One 

of the burn severity classes within MTBS is an unburned to low-severity class. This burn severity class will 

be used to represent unburned islands of sagebrush within the fire perimeter for the sagebrush base layer. 

Areas within the other severity classes within the fire perimeter will be removed from the base sagebrush layer 

during the update process. Not all wildfires, however, have the same impacts on the recovery of sagebrush 

habitat, depending largely on soil moisture and temperature regimes. For example, cooler, moister sagebrush 

habitat has a higher potential for recovery or, if needed, restoration than does the warmer, dryer sagebrush 

habitat. These cooler, moister areas will likely be detected as sagebrush in future updates to LANDFIRE.

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-35 
Appendix D Final EIS 

Conifer Encroachment Adjustment for the Sagebrush Base Layer: 

Conifer encroachment into sagebrush vegetation reduces the spatial extent of sage-grouse habitat (Davies et 

al. 2011, Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013). Conifer species that show propensity for encroaching into sagebrush 

vegetation resulting in sage-grouse habitat loss include various juniper species, such as Utah juniper 

(Juniperus osteosperma), western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis), Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus 

scopulorum), pinyon species, including singleleaf pinyon (Pinus monophylla) and pinyon pine (Pinus edulis), 

ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) 

(Gruell et al. 1986, Grove et al. 2005, Davies et al. 2011).

A rule set for conifer encroachment was developed to be used for determination of the existing sagebrush base 

layer. To capture the geographic extent of sagebrush that is likely to experience conifer encroachment, 

ecological systems within LANDFIRE EVT version 1.2 (NatureServe 2011) were identified if they have the 

capability of supporting the conifer species (listed above) and have the capability of supporting sagebrush 

vegetation. Those ecological systems (Table D-7) were deemed to be the plant communities with conifers 

most likely to encroach into sagebrush vegetation. Sagebrush vegetation was defined as including sagebrush 

species (Attachment B) that provide habitat for the Greater Sage-Grouse and are included in the Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Assessment Framework. An adjacency analysis was conducted to identify all sagebrush pixels that 

were directly adjacent to these conifer ecological systems and these immediately adjacent sagebrush pixels 

were removed from the sagebrush base layer.

Table D-7. Ecological Systems with Conifers Most Likely to Encroach into Sagebrush Vegetation

EVT Ecological Systems Coniferous Species and Sagebrush Vegetation that 

the Ecological System has the Capability to Produce

Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Pinus edulis 

Juniperus osteosperma 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia bigelovii 

Artemisia pygmaea 

Columbia Plateau Western Juniper Woodland 

and Savanna

Juniperus occidentalis 

Pinus ponderosa 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia rigida 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

East Cascades Oak-Ponderosa Pine Forest 

and Woodland

Pinus ponderosa 

Pseudotsuga menziesii 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia nova 

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Pinus monophylla 

Juniperus osteosperma Artemisia 

arbuscula 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

D-36 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Appendix D

EVT Ecological Systems Coniferous Species and Sagebrush Vegetation that 

the Ecological System has the Capability to Produce

Northern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine 

Woodland and Savanna

Pinus ponderosa 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper 

Woodland

Juniperus osteosperma 

Juniperus scopulorum 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata 

Rocky Mountain Poor-Site Lodgepole Pine 

Forest

Pinus contorta 

Pseudotsuga menziesii 

Pinus ponderosa 

Artemisia tridentata 

Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland

Pinus edulis 

Juniperus monosperma 

Artemisia bigelovii 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia tridentata ssp.vaseyana 

Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine 

Woodland

Pinus ponderosa 

Pseudotsuga menziesii 

Pinus edulis 

Pinus contorta 

Juniperus spp. 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Invasive Annual Grasses Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer: There are no invasive species datasets 

from 2010 to the present (beyond the LANDFIRE data) that meet the three criteria (nationally consistent, 

known level of accuracy, and periodically updated) for use in the determination of the sagebrush base layer. 

For a description of how invasive species land cover will be incorporated in the sagebrush base layer in the 

future, see Monitoring Sagebrush Availability.

Sagebrush Restoration Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer: There are no datasets from 2010 to the 

present that could provide additions to the sagebrush base layer from restoration treatments that meet the three 

criteria (nationally consistent, known level of accuracy, and periodically updated); therefore, no adjustments 

were made to the sagebrush base layer calculated from the LANDFIRE EVT (version 1.2) attributable to 

restoration activities since 2010. Successful restoration treatments before 2010 are assumed to have been 

captured in the LANDFIRE refresh.

a. Monitoring Sagebrush Availability

Updating the Sagebrush Availability Sagebrush Base Layer

Sagebrush availability will be updated annually by incorporating changes to the sagebrush base layer 

attributable to agriculture, urbanization, and wildfire. The monitoring schedule for the existing sagebrush base 

layer updates is as follows: 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-37 
Appendix D Final EIS

2010 Existing Sagebrush Base Layer = [Sagebrush EVT] minus [2006 Imperviousness Layer] minus [2009 

and 2010 CDL] minus [2009/10 GeoMac Fires < 1,000 acres] minus [2009/10 MTBS Fires excluding 

unburned sagebrush islands] minus [Conifer Encroachment Layer] 

2012 Existing Sagebrush Update = [Base 2010 Existing Sagebrush Layer] minus [2011 Imperviousness 

Layer] minus [2011 and 2012 CDL] minus [2011/12 GeoMac Fires < 1,000 acres] minus [2011/12 MTBS 

Fires that are greater than 1,000 acres, excluding unburned sagebrush islands within the perimeter]

2013 and beyond Existing Sagebrush Updates = [Previous Existing Sagebrush Update Layer] minus 

[Imperviousness Layer (if new data are available)] minus [Next 2 years of CDL] minus [Next 2 years of 

GeoMac Fires < 1,000 acres] minus [Next 2 years MTBS Fires that are greater than 1,000 acres, excluding 

unburned sagebrush islands within the perimeter] plus [restoration/monitoring data provided by the field]

Sagebrush Restoration Updates

Restoration after fire, after agricultural conversion, after seedings of introduced grasses, or after treatments of 

pinyon pine and/or juniper, are examples of updates to the sagebrush base layer that can add sagebrush 

vegetation back in. When restoration has been determined to be successful through range wide, consistent, 

interagency fine and site-scale monitoring, the polygonal data will be used to add sagebrush pixels back into 

the broad and mid-scale sagebrush base layer. 

Measure 1b – Context for the change in the amount of sagebrush in a landscape of interest

Measure 1b describes the amount of sagebrush on the landscape of interest compared with the amount of 

sagebrush the landscape of interest could ecologically support. Areas with the potential to support sagebrush 

were derived from the BpS data layer that describes sagebrush pre Euro-American settlement (biophysical 

setting (BpS) v1.2 of LANDFIRE). This measure (1b) will provide information during evaluations of 

monitoring data to set the context for a given geographic area of interest. The information could also be used 

to inform management options for restoration, mitigation and inform effectiveness monitoring.

The identification and spatial locations of natural plant communities (vegetation) that are believed to have 

existed on the landscape (BpS) were constructed based on an approximation of the historical (pre EuroAmerican settlement) disturbance regime and how the historical disturbance regime operated on the current 

biophysical environment. BpS is composed of map units which are based on NatureServe’s (2011) terrestrial 

ecological systems classification.

The ecological systems within BpS used for this monitoring framework are those ecological systems that have 

the capability of supporting sagebrush vegetation and could provide seasonal habitat for the sage-grouse. 

These ecological systems are listed in Table D-6 with the exception of the Artemisia tridentata ssp. 

vaseyana Shrubland Alliance and the Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance. Ecological systems selected 

included sagebrush species or subspecies that are included in the Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework 

and are found in Attachment B.

Attributable to the lack of any reference data, the BpS layer does not have an associated accuracy assessment. 

Visual inspection, however, of the BpS data reveals inconsistencies in the labeling of pixels among 

LANDFIRE map zones. The reason for these inconsistencies between map zones are the decision rules used 

to map a given ecological system will vary between map zones based on different physical, biological, 

disturbance and atmospheric regimes of the region. This can result in artificial edges in the map that are an 

artifact of the mapping process. However, metrics will be calculated at broad spatial scales using BpS potential 

vegetation type, not small groupings or individual pixels, therefore, the magnitude of these observable errors 

in the BpS layer is minor compared with the size of the reporting units. Therefore, since BpS will be used to 

identify broad landscape patterns of dominant vegetation, these inconsistencies will only have a minor impact 

on the percent sagebrush availability calculation.

D-38 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment
Final EIS Appendix D

LANDFIRE BpS data are not designed to be used at a local level. In reporting the percent sagebrush statistic 

for the various reporting units, the uncertainty of the percent sagebrush will increase as the size of the reporting 

unit gets smaller. LANDFIRE data should never be used at the pixel level (30m2) for any reporting. The 

smallest geographic extent use of the data for this purpose is at the PAC level and for the smallest PACs the 

initial percent sagebrush remaining estimate will have greater uncertainties compared with the much larger 

PACs. 

Tracking

BLM and Forest Service will analyze and monitor sagebrush availability (Measure 1) on a bi-annual basis and 

it will be used to inform effectiveness monitoring and initiate adaptive management actions as necessary. The 

2010 estimate of sagebrush availability will serve as the base year and an updated estimate for 2012 will be 

reported in 2014 after all datasets become available. The 2012 estimate will capture changes attributable to 

fire, agriculture, and urban development. Subsequent updates will always include new fire and agricultural 

data and new urban data when available. Restoration data that meets criteria of adding sagebrush areas back 

into the sagebrush base layer will begin to be factored in as data allows. Attributable to data availability, there 

will be a two year lag (approximately) between when the estimate is generated and when the data used for the 

estimate becomes available (e.g., the 2014 sagebrush availability will be included in the 2016 estimate).

Future Plans

Geospatial data used to generate the sagebrush base layer will be available through BLM’s EGIS Web Portal 

and Geospatial Gateway or through the authoritative data source. Legacy datasets will be preserved, so that 

trends may be calculated. Additionally, accuracy assessment data for all source datasets will be provided on 

the portal either spatially, where applicable, or through the metadata. Accuracy assessment information was 

deemed vital to share to help users understand the limitation of the sagebrush estimates and will be 

summarized spatially by map zone and included in the Portal.

LANDFIRE plans to begin a remapping effort in 2015. This remapping has the potential to greatly improve 

overall quality of the data products primarily through the use of higher quality remote sensing datasets.

Additionally, BLM and the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC) are working to 

improve the accuracy of vegetation map products for broad and mid-scale analyses through the Grass/Shrub 

mapping effort in partnership with the MRLC. The Grass/Shrub mapping effort applies the Wyoming multiscale sagebrush habitat methodology (Homer et al. 2009) to spatially depict fractional percent cover estimates 

for five components range and west-wide. These five components are percent cover of sagebrush vegetation, 

percent bare ground, percent herbaceous vegetation (grass and forbs combined), annual vegetation, and 

percentshrubs. One of the benefits of the design of these fractional cover maps is that they facilitate monitoring 

“with-in” class variation (e.g., examination of declining trend in sagebrush cover for individual pixels). This 

“with-in” class variation can serve as one indicator of sagebrush quality that cannot be derived from 

LANDFIRE’s EVT information. The Grass/Shrub effort is not a substitute for fine scale monitoring, but will 

leverage fine scale data to support the validation of the mapping products. An evaluation will be conducted to 

determine if either dataset is of great enough quality to warrant replacing the existing sagebrush layers. The 

earliest possible date for this evaluation will not occur until 2018 or 2019 depending on data availability.

B.2. Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2)

The measure of habitat degradation will be calculated by combining the footprints of threats identified in Table 

D-4. The footprint is defined as the direct area of influence of “active” energy and infrastructure; it is used as 

a surrogate for human activity. Although these analyses will try to summarize results at the aforementioned 

meaningful geographic areas of interest, some may be too small to report the metrics appropriately and may 

be combined (smaller populations, PACs within a population, etc.). Data sources for each threat are found in 

Table D-8, Geospatial Data Sources for Habitat Degradation. Specific assumptions (inclusion criteria for data, 

width/area assumptions for point and line features, etc.) and methodology for each threat, and the combined 

measure, are detailed below. All datasets will be updated annually to monitor broad- and mid-scale year-toWyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-39
Appendix D Final EIS

year changes and to calculate trends in habitat degradation to inform adaptive management. A 5-year summary 

report will be provided to the USFWS.

a. Habitat Degradation Datasets and Assumptions

Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities) – This dataset will compile information from three oil 

and gas databases: the proprietary IHS Enerdeq database, the BLM Automated Fluid Minerals Support System 

(AFMSS) database, and the proprietary Platts (a McGraw-Hill Financial Company) GIS Custom Data 

(hereafter, Platts) database of power plants. Point data from wells active within the last 10 years from IHS and 

producing wells from AFMSS will be considered as a 5-acre (2.0ha) direct area of influence centered on the 

well point, as recommended by the BLM WO-300 (Minerals and Realty Management). Plugged and 

abandoned wells will be removed if the date of well abandonment was before the first day of the reporting 

year (i.e., for the 2015 reporting year, a well must have been plugged and abandoned by 12/31/2014 to be 

removed). Platts oil and gas power plants data (subset to operational power plants) will also be included as a 

5-acre (2.0ha) direct area of influence.

Additional Measure: Reclaimed Energy-related Degradation. This dataset will include those wells that have 

been plugged and abandoned. This measure thereby attempts to measure energy-related degradation that has 

been reclaimed but not necessarily fully restored to sage-grouse habitat. This measure will establish a baseline 

by using wells that have been plugged and abandoned within the last 10 years from the IHS and AFMSS 

datasets. Time lags for lek attendance in response to infrastructure have been documented to be delayed 2–10 

years from energy development activities (Harju et al. 2010). Reclamation actions may require 2 or more years 

from the Final Abandonment Notice. Sagebrush seedling establishment may take 6 or more years from the 

point of seeding, depending on such variables as annual precipitation, annual temperature, and soil type and 

depth (Pyke 2011). This 10-year period is conservative and assumes some level of habitat improvement 10 

years after plugging. Research by Hemstrom et al. (2002), however, proposes an even longer period—more 

than 100 years—for recovery of sagebrush habitats, even with active restoration approaches. Direct area of 

influence will be considered 3 acres (1.2ha) (J. Perry, personal communication, February 12, 2014). This 

additional layer/measure could be used at the broad and mid-scale to identify areas where sagebrush habitat 

and/or potential sagebrush habitat is likely still degraded. This layer/measure could also be used where further 

investigation at the fine or site scale would be warranted to: 1) quantify the level of reclamation already 

conducted, and 2) evaluate the amount of restoration still required for sagebrush habitat recovery. At a 

particular level (e.g., population, PACs), these areas and the reclamation efforts/success could be used to 

inform reclamation standards associated with future developments. Once these areas have transitioned from 

reclamation standards to meeting restoration standards, they can be added back into the sagebrush availability 

layer using the same methodology as described for adding restoration treatment areas lost to wildfire and 

agriculture conversion (see Monitoring Sagebrush Restoration in Monitoring Sagebrush Availability). This 

dataset will be updated annually from the IHS dataset.

Energy (coal mines) – Currently, there is no comprehensive dataset available that identifies the footprint of 

active coal mining across all jurisdictions. Therefore, point and polygon datasets will be used each year to 

identify coal mining locations. Data sources will be identified and evaluated annually and will include at a 

minimum: BLM coal lease polygons, U.S. Energy Information Administration mine occurrence points, U.S. 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement coal mining permit polygons (as available), and U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Resources Data System mine occurrence points. These data will inform 

where active coal mining may be occurring. Additionally, coal power plant data from Platts power plants 

database (subset to operational power plants) will be included. Aerial imagery will then be used to digitize 

manually the active coal mining and coal power plants surface disturbance in or near these known occurrence 

areas. While the date of aerial imagery varies by scale, the most current data available from Esri and/or Google 

will be used to locate (generally at 1:50,000 and below) and digitize (generally at 1:10,000 and below) active 

coal mine and power plant direct area of influence. Coal mine location data source and imagery date will be 

documented for each digitized coal polygon at the time of creation. Subsurface facility locations (polygon or 

point location as available) will also be collected if available, included in density calculations, and added to 

the active surface activity layer as appropriate (if an actual direct area of influence can be located).

D-40 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment
Final EIS Appendix D

Energy (wind energy facilities) – This dataset will be a subset of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

Digital Obstacles point file. Points where “Type_” = “WINDMILL” will be included. Direct area of influence 

of these point features will be measured by converting to a polygon dataset as a direct area of influence of 3 

acres (1.2ha) centered on each tower point. See the BLM’s “Wind Energy Development Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement” (BLM 2005). Additionally, Platts power plants database will be used for 

transformer stations associated with wind energy sites (subset to operational power plants), also with a 3-acre 

(1.2ha) direct area of influence.

Energy (solar energy facilities) – This dataset will include solar plants as compiled with the Platts power 

plants database (subset to operational power plants). This database includes an attribute that indicates the 

operational capacity of each solar power plant. Total capacity at the power plant was based on ratings of the 

in-service unit(s), in megawatts. Direct area of influence polygons will be centered over each point feature 

representing 7.3ac (3.0ha) per megawatt of the stated operational capacity, per the report of the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), “Land-Use Requirements for Solar Power Plants in the United States” 

(Ong et al. 2013).

Energy (geothermal energy facilities) – This dataset will include geothermal wells in existence or under 

construction as compiled with the IHS wells database and power plants as compiled with the Platts database 

(subset to operational power plants). Direct area of influence of these point features will be measured by 

converting to a polygon dataset of 3 acres (1.2ha) centered on each well or power plant point.

Mining (active developments; locatable, leasable, saleable) – This dataset will include active locatable 

mining locations as compiled with the proprietary InfoMine database. Aerial imagery will then be used to 

digitize manually the active mining surface disturbance in or near these known occurrence areas. While the 

date of aerial imagery varies by scale, the most current data available from Esri and/or Google will be used to 

locate (generally at 1:50,000 and below) and digitize (generally at 1:10,000 and below) active mine direct area 

of influence. Mine location data source and imagery date will be documented for each digitized polygon at 

the time of creation. Currently, there are no known compressive databases available for leasable or saleable 

mining sites beyond coal mines. Other data sources will be evaluated and used as they are identified or as they 

become available. Point data may be converted to polygons to represent direct area of influence unless actual 

surface disturbance is available.

Infrastructure (roads) – This dataset will be compiled from the proprietary Esri StreetMap Premium for 

ArcGIS. Dataset features that will be used are: Interstate Highways, Major Roads, and Surface Streets to 

capture most paved and “crowned and ditched” roads while not including “two-track” and 4-wheel-drive 

routes. These minor roads, while not included in the broad- and mid-scale monitoring, may support a volume 

of traffic that can have deleterious effects on sage-grouse leks. It may be appropriate to consider the frequency 

and type of use of roads in a NEPA analysis for a proposed project. This fine- and site-scale analysis will 

require more site-specific data than is identified in this monitoring framework. The direct area of influence 

for roads will be represented by 240.2ft, 84.0ft, and 40.7ft (73.2m, 25.6m, and 12.4m) total widths centered 

on the line feature for Interstate Highways, Major Roads, and Surface Streets, respectively (Knick et al. 2011). 

The most current dataset will be used for each monitoring update. Note: This is a related but different dataset 

than what was used in BER (Manier et al. 2013). Individual BLM/Forest Service planning units may use 

different road layers for fine- and site-scale monitoring.

Infrastructure (railroads) – This dataset will be a compilation from the Federal Railroad Administration Rail 

Lines of the USA dataset. Non-abandoned rail lines will be used; abandoned rail lines will not be used. The 

direct are of influence for railroads will be represented by a 30.8ft (9.4m) total width (Knick et al. 2011) 

centered on the non-abandoned railroad line feature.

Infrastructure (power lines) – This line dataset will be derived from the proprietary Platts transmission lines 

database. Linear features in the dataset attributed as “buried” will be removed from the disturbance calculation. 

Only “In Service” lines will be used; “Proposed” lines will not be used. Direct area of influence will be 

determined by the kV designation: 1–199 kV (100ft/30.5m), 200–399 kV (150ft/45.7m), 400–699 kV 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-41
Appendix D Final EIS 

(200ft/61.0m), and 700-or greater kV (250ft/76.2m) based on average right-of-way and structure widths, 

according to BLM WO-300 (Minerals and Realty Management).

Infrastructure (communication towers) – This point dataset will be compiled from the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) communication towers point file; all duplicate points will be removed. 

It will be converted to a polygon dataset by using a direct area of influence of 2.5 acres (1.0ha) centered on 

each communication tower point (Knick et al. 2011).

Infrastructure (other vertical structures) – This point dataset will be compiled from the FAA’s Digital 

Obstacles point file. Points where “Type_” = “WINDMILL” will be removed. Duplicate points from the FCC 

communication towers point file will be removed. Remaining features will be converted to a polygon dataset 

using a direct area of influence of 2.5 acres (1.0ha) centered on each vertical structure point (Knick et al. 

2011).

Other Developed Rights-of-Way – Currently, no additional data sources for other rights-of-way have been 

identified; roads, power lines, railroads, pipelines, and other known linear features are represented in the 

categories described above. The newly purchased IHS data do contain pipeline information; however, this 

database does not currently distinguish between above-ground and underground pipelines. If additional 

features representing human activities are identified, they will be added to monitoring reports using similar 

assumptions to those used with the threats described above. 

b. Habitat Degradation Threat Combination and Calculation

The threats targeted for measuring human activity (Table D-4) will be converted to direct area of influence 

polygons as described for each threat above. These threat polygon layers will be combined and features 

dissolved to create one overall polygon layer representing footprints of active human activity in the range of 

sage-grouse. Individual datasets, however, will be preserved to indicate which types of threats may be 

contributing to overall habitat degradation. This measure has been divided into three submeasures to describe 

habitat degradation on the landscape. Percentages will be calculated as follows:

Measure 2a. Footprint by geographic area of interest: Divide area of the active/direct footprint 

by the total area of the geographic area of interest (% disturbance in geographic area of 

interest).

Measure 2b. Active/direct footprint by historical sagebrush potential: Divide area of the active 

footprint that coincides with areas with historical sagebrush potential (BpS calculation from 

habitat availability) within a given geographic area of interest by the total area with sagebrush 

potential within the geographic area of interest (% disturbance on potential historical sagebrush 

in geographic area of interest).

Measure 2c. Active/direct footprint by current sagebrush: Divide area of the active footprint 

that coincides with areas of existing sagebrush (EVT calculation from habitat availability) 

within a given geographic area of interest by the total area that is current sagebrush within the 

geographic area of interest (% disturbance on current sagebrush in geographic area of interest).

Table D-8. Geospatial Data Sources for Habitat Degradation (Measure 2)

Degradation

Type

Subcategory Data Source Direct Area of

Influence 

Area Source

Energy (oil & gas) Wells IHS; BLM (AFMSS) 5.0ac (2.0ha) BLM 

WO-300

Power Plants Platts (power 

plants)

5.0ac (2.0ha) BLM 

WO-300

D-42 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Appendix D

Degradation

Type

Subcategory Data Source Direct Area of

Influence

Area Source

Energy (coal) Mines BLM; Forest 

Service; Office of 

Surface Mining 

Reclamation and 

Environment; USGS 

Mineral Resources 

Data System 

Polygon area

(digitized)

Esri/ Google 

Imagery

Power Plants Platts (power 

plants)

Polygon area Esri Imagery

(digitized)

Energy (wind) Wind Turbines Federal Aviation 

Administration

3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM

WO-300

Power Plants Platts (power 

plants)

3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM 

WO-300

Energy (solar) Fields/Power Plants Platts (power 

plants)

7.3ac (3.0 ha)/MW NREL

Energy 

(geothermal)

Wells IHS 3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM 

WO-300

Power Plants Platts (power 

plants)

Polygon area

(digistized)

Esri Imagery

Mining Locatable

Developments

InfoMine Polygon area

(digitized)

Esri Imagery

Infrastructure 

(roads)

Surface Streets

(Minor Roads)

Esri StreetMap 

Premium

40.7 ft. (12.4m) USGS

Major Roads Esri StreetMap

Premium

84.0 ft. (25.6m) USGS

Interstate Highways Esri StreetMap

Premium

240.2 ft. (73.2m) USGS

Infrastructure 

(railroads)

ActiveLines Federal Railroad 

Administration

30.8 ft. (9.4m) USGS

Infrastructure 

(powerlines)

1-199 kV Lines Platts (transmission 

lines)

100 ft. (30.5 m) BLM 

WO-300

200-399 kV Lines Platts (transmission 

lines)

150 ft. (45.7m) BLM 

WO-300

400-699 kV Lines Platts (transmission 

lines)

200 ft. (61.0m) BLM 

WO-300

700+ kV Lines Platts (transmission 

lines)

250 ft. (76.2m) BLM 

WO-300

Infrastructure 

(communication

Towers Federal 

Communications 

Commission

2.5 ac (1.0 ha) BLM 

WO-300

B.3. Energy and Mining Density (Measure 3)

The measure of density of energy and mining will be calculated by combining the locations of energy and 

mining threats identified in Table D-4. This measure will provide an estimate of the intensity of human activity 

or the intensity of habitat degradation. The number of energy facilities and mining locations will be summed 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-43
Appendix D Final EIS

and divided by the area of meaningful geographic areas of interest to calculate density of these activities. Data 

sources for each threat are found in Table D-8. Specific assumptions (inclusion criteria for data, width/area 

assumptions for point and line features, etc.) and methodology for each threat, and the combined measure, are 

detailed below. All datasets will be updated annually to monitor broad- and mid-scale year-to-year changes 

and 5-year (or longer) trends in habitat degradation.

a. Energy and Mining Density Datasets and Assumptions

Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities) (See Section B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.)

Energy (coal mines) (See Section B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.)

Energy (wind energy facilities) (See Section B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.) Energy (solar energy 

facilities) (See Section B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.) Energy (geothermal energy facilities) (See 

Section B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.) Mining (active developments; locatable, leasable, saleable) 

(See Section B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.)

b. Energy and Mining Density Threat Combination and Calculation

Datasets for energy and mining will be collected in two primary forms: point locations (e.g., wells) and 

polygon areas (e.g., surface coal mining). The following rule set will be used to calculate density for 

meaningful geographic areas of interest including standard grids and per polygon:

1. Point locations will be preserved; no additional points will be removed beyond the methodology 

described above. Energy facilities in close proximity (an oil well close to a wind tower) will be 

retained.

2. Polygons will not be merged, or features further dissolved. Thus, overlapping facilities will be 

retained, such that each individual threat will be a separate polygon data input for the density 

calculation.

3. The analysis unit (polygon or 640-acre section in a grid) will be the basis for counting the number of 

mining or energy facilities per unit area. Within the analysis unit, all point features will be summed, 

and any individual polygons will be counted as one (e.g., a coal mine will be counted as one facility 

within population). Where polygon features overlap multiple units (polygons or pixels), the facility 

will be counted as one in each unit where the polygon occurs (e.g., a polygon crossing multiple 640-

acre sections would be counted as one in each 640-acre section for a density per 640-acre-section 

calculation).

4. In methodologies with different-sized units (e.g., MZs, populations, etc.) raw facility counts will be 

converted to densities by dividing the raw facility counts by the total area of the unit. Typically this 

will be measured as facilities per 640 acres.

5. For uniform grids, raw facility counts will be reported. Typically this number will also be converted 

to facilities per 640 acres.

6. Reporting may include summaries beyond the simple ones above. Zonal statistics may be used to 

smooth smaller grids to help display and convey information about areas within meaningful 

geographic areas of interest that have high levels of energy and/or mining activity.

7. Additional statistics for each defined unit may also include adjusting the area to include only the area 

with the historical potential for sagebrush (BpS) or areas currently sagebrush (EVT).

D-44 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment
Final EIS Appendix D

Individual datasets and threat combination datasets for habitat degradation will be available through the 

BLM’s EGIS web portal and geospatial gateway. Legacy datasets will be preserved so that trends may be 

calculated.

C. Population (Demographics) Monitoring

State wildlife management agencies are responsible for monitoring sage-grouse populations within their 

respective states. WAFWA will coordinate this collection of annual population data by state agencies. These 

data will be made available to the BLM according to the terms of the forthcoming Greater Sage-Grouse 

Population Monitoring Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (2014) between WAFWA and the BLM. The 

MOU outlines a process, timeline, and responsibilities for regular data sharing of sage-grouse population 

and/or habitat information for the purposes of implementing sage-grouse LUPs/amendments and subsequent 

effectiveness monitoring. Population areas were refined from the “Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report” (COT 2013) by individual state wildlife agencies to 

create a consistent naming nomenclature for future data analyses. These population data will be used for 

analysis at the applicable scale to supplement habitat effectiveness monitoring of management actions and to 

inform the adaptive management responses.

D. Effectiveness Monitoring

Effectiveness monitoring will provide the data needed to evaluate BLM and Forest Service actions toward 

reaching the objective of the national planning strategy (BLM IM 2012-044) – to conserve sage-grouse 

populations and their habitat– and the objectives for the land use planning area. Effectiveness monitoring 

methods described here will encompass multiple larger scales, from areas as large as the WAFWA MZ to the 

scale of the Proposed LUP Amendments. Effectiveness data used for these larger-scale evaluations will 

include all lands in the area of interest, regardless of surface ownership/management, and will help inform 

where finer-scale evaluations are needed, such as population areas smaller than an LUP or PACs within an 

LUP (described in Fine and Site Scales). Data will also include the trend of disturbance within these areas of 

interest to inform the need to initiate adaptive management responses as described in the Proposed LUP 

Amendments.

The BLM and the Forest Service will coordinate with the State of Wyoming in evaluating the compliance of 

all actions within a sage-grouse core area. Evaluation of current disturbance, disruptions and conservation 

actions within a SG core area will be conducted to determine if all entities are in compliance with their specific 

standards and whether or not it indeed has not caused declines of sage-grouse populations. This approach also 

helps focus scarce resources to areas experiencing habitat loss, degradation, or population declines, without 

excluding the possibility of concurrent, finer-scale evaluations as needed where habitat or population 

anomalies have been identified through some other means.

To determine the effectiveness of the sage-grouse national planning strategy, the BLM and the Forest Service

will evaluate the answers to the following questions and prepare a broad- and mid-scale effectiveness report:

1. Sagebrush Availability and Condition:

a. What is the amount of sagebrush availability and the change in the amount and condition of 

sagebrush?

b. What is the existing amount of sagebrush on the landscape and the change in the amount 

relative to the pre-EuroAmerican historical distribution of sagebrush (BpS)?

c. What is the trend and condition of the indicators describing sagebrush characteristics 

important to sage-grouse?

2. Habitat Degradation and Intensity of Activities: 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-45
Appendix D Final EIS

a. What is the amount of habitat degradation and the change in that amount? 

b. What is the intensity of activities and the change in the intensity?

c. What is the amount of reclaimed energy-related degradation and the change in the amount?

d. What is the population estimation of sage-grouse and the change in the population estimation?

3. How are the BLM and the Forest Service contributing to changes in the amount of sagebrush?

4. How are the BLM and the Forest Service contributing to disturbance?

The compilation of broad- and mid-scale data (and population trends as available) into an effectiveness 

monitoring report will occur on a 5-year reporting schedule (see Attachment A), which may be accelerated to 

respond to critical emerging issues (in consultation with the USFWS and state wildlife agencies). In addition, 

effectiveness monitoring results will be used to identify emerging issues and research needs and inform the 

BLM and the Forest Service adaptive management strategy (see the adaptive management section of this 

Environmental Impact Statement).

To determine the effectiveness of the sage-grouse objectives of the land use plan, the BLM and the Forest 

Service will evaluate the answers to the following questions and prepare a plan effectiveness report:

1. Is this plan meeting the sage-grouse habitat objectives?

2. Are sage-grouse areas within the LUP meeting, or making progress toward meeting, land health 

standards, including the Special Status Species/wildlife habitat standard?

3. Is the plan meeting the disturbance objective(s) within sage-grouse areas?

4. Are the sage-grouse populations within this plan boundary and within the sage-grouse areas 

increasing, stable, or declining?

The effectiveness monitoring report for this LUP will occur on a 5-year reporting schedule (see Attachment 

A) or more often if habitat or population anomalies indicate the need for an evaluation to facilitate adaptive 

management or respond to critical emerging issues. Data will be made available through the BLM’s EGIS 

web portal and the geospatial gateway.

Methods

At the broad and mid scales (PACs and above) the BLM and the Forest Service will summarize the vegetation, 

disturbance, and (when available) population data. Although the analysis will try to summarize results for 

PACs within each sage-grouse population, some populations may be too small to report the metrics 

appropriately and may need to be combined to provide an estimate with an acceptable level of accuracy. 

Otherwise, they will be flagged for more intensive monitoring by the appropriate landowner or agency. The 

BLM and the Forest Service will then analyze monitoring data to detect the trend in the amount of sagebrush; 

the condition of the vegetation in the sage-grouse areas (MacKinnon et al. 2011); the trend in the amount of 

disturbance; the change in disturbed areas owing to successful restoration; and the amount of new disturbance 

the BLM and/or the Forest Service has permitted. These data could be supplemented with population data 

(when available) to inform an understanding of the correlation between habitat and PACs within a population. 

This overall effectiveness evaluation must consider the lag effect response of populations to habitat changes 

(Garton et al. 2011).

Calculating Question 1, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The amount of sagebrush available in the 

large area of interest will use the information from Measure 1a (I.B.1., Sagebrush Availability) and calculate 

the change from the 2012 baseline to the end date of the reporting period. To calculate the change in the 

D-46 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment
Final EIS Appendix D

amount of sagebrush on the landscape to compare with the historical areas with potential to support sagebrush, 

the information from Measure 1b (I.B.1., Sagebrush Availability) will be used. To calculate the trend in the 

condition of sagebrush at the mid-scale, three sources of data will be used: the BLM’s Grass/Shrub mapping 

effort (Future Plans in Section B.1., Sagebrush Availability); the results from the calculation of the landscape 

indicators, such as patch size (described below); and the BLM’s Landscape Monitoring Framework (LMF) 

and sage-grouse intensification effort (also described below). The LMF and sage-grouse intensification effort 

data are collected in a statistical sampling framework that allows calculation of indicator values at multiple 

scales.

Beyond the importance of sagebrush availability to sage-grouse, the mix of sagebrush patches on the landscape 

at the broad and mid-scale provides the life requisite of space for sage-grouse dispersal needs (see the HAF). 

The configuration of sagebrush habitat patches and the land cover or land use between the habitat patches at 

the broad and mid scales also defines suitability. There are three significant habitat indicators that influence 

habitat use, dispersal, and movement across populations: the size and number of habitat patches, the 

connectivity of habitat patches (linkage areas), and habitat fragmentation (scope of unsuitable and non-habitats 

between habitat patches). The most appropriate commercial software to measure patch dynamics, 

connectivity, and fragmentation at the broad and mid scales will be used, along with the same data layers 

derived for sagebrush availability.

The BLM initiated the LMF in 2011 in cooperation with the NRCS. The objective of the LMF effort is to 

provide unbiased estimates of vegetation and soil condition and trend using a statistically balanced sample 

design across BLM lands. Recognizing that sage-grouse populations are more resilient where the sagebrush 

plant community has certain characteristics unique to a particular life stage of sage-grouse (Knick and 

Connelly 2011, Stiver et al. in press), a group of sage-grouse habitat and sagebrush plant community subject 

matter experts identified those vegetation indicators collected at LMF sampling points that inform sage-grouse 

habitat needs. The experts represented the Agricultural Research Service, BLM, NRCS, USFWS, WAFWA, 

state wildlife agencies, and academia. The common indicators identified include: species composition, foliar 

cover, height of the tallest sagebrush and herbaceous plant, intercanopy gap, percent of invasive species, 

sagebrush shape, and bare ground. To increase the precision of estimates of sagebrush conditions within the 

range of sage-grouse, additional plot locations in occupied sage-grouse habitat (Sage-Grouse Intensification) 

were added in 2013. The common indicators are also collected on sampling locations in the NRCS National 

Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/

national/technical/nra/nri/?&cid=stelprdb1041620).

The sage-grouse intensification baseline data will be collected over a 5-year period, and an annual sage-grouse 

intensification report will be prepared describing the status of the indicators. Beginning in year 6, the annual 

status report will be accompanied with a trend report, which will be available on an annual basis thereafter, 

contingent on continuation of the current monitoring budget. This information, in combination with the 

Grass/Shrub mapping information, the mid-scale habitat suitability indicator measures, and the sagebrush 

availability information will be used to answer Question 1 of the National Planning Strategy Effectiveness 

Report.

Calculating Question 2, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: Evaluations of the amount of habitat 

degradation and the intensity of the activities in the area of interest will use the information from Measure 2 

(Section B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring) and Measure 3 (Section B.3., Energy and Mining Density). 

The field office will collect data on the amount of reclaimed energy-related degradation on plugged and 

abandoned and oil/gas well sites. The data are expected to demonstrate that the reclaimed sites have yet to 

meet the habitat restoration objectives for sage-grouse habitat. This information, in combination with the 

amount of habitat degradation, will be used to answer Question 2 of the National Planning Strategy 

Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 3, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The change in sage-grouse estimated 

populations will be calculated from data provided by the state wildlife agencies, when available. This 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-47
Appendix D Final EIS

population data (Section C., Population [Demographics] Monitoring) will be used to answer Question 3 of the

National Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 4, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The estimated contribution by the BLM or 

the Forest Service to the change in the amount of sagebrush in the area of interest will use the information 

from Measure 1a (Section B.1., Sagebrush Availability). This measure is derived from the national datasets 

that remove sagebrush (Table D-5). To determine the relative contribution of BLM and Forest Service

management, the current Surface Management Agency geospatial data layer will be used to differentiate the 

amount of change for each management agency for this measure in the geographic areas of interest. This 

information will be used to answer Question 4 of the National Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 5, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The estimated contribution by the BLM or 

the Forest Service to the change in the amount of disturbance in the area of interest will use the information 

from Measure 2a (Section B.2., Monitoring Habitat Degradation) and Measure 3 (Section B.3., Energy and 

Mining Density). These measures are all derived from the national disturbance datasets that degrade habitat 

(Table D-8). To determine the relative contribution of BLM and Forest Service management, the current 

Surface Management Agency geospatial data layer will be used to differentiate the amount of change for each 

management agency for these two measures in the geographic areas of interest. This information will be used 

to answer Question 5 of the National Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report.

Answers to the five questions for determining the effectiveness of the national planning strategy will identify 

areas that appear to be meeting the objectives of the strategy and will facilitate identification of population 

areas for more detailed analysis. Conceptually, if the broad-scale monitoring identifies increasing sagebrush 

availability and improving vegetation conditions, decreasing disturbance, and a stable or increasing population 

for the area of interest, there is evidence that the objectives of the national planning strategy to maintain 

populations and their habitats have been met. Conversely, where information indicates that sagebrush is 

decreasing and vegetation conditions are degrading, disturbance in sage-grouse areas is increasing, and/or 

populations are declining relative to the baseline, there is evidence that the objectives of the national planning 

strategy are not being achieved. Such a determination would likely result in a more detailed analysis and could 

be the basis for implementing more restrictive adaptive management measures.

With respect to the land use plan area, the BLM and the Forest Service will summarize the vegetation, 

disturbance, and population data to determine if the LUP is meeting the plan objectives. Effectiveness 

information used for these evaluations includes BLM/Forest Service surface management areas and will help 

inform where finer-scale evaluations are needed, such as seasonal habitats, corridors, or linkage areas. Data 

will also include the trend of disturbance within the sage-grouse areas, which will inform the need to initiate 

adaptive management responses as described in the Proposed LUP Amendments.

Calculating Question 1, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The condition of vegetation and the allotments meeting 

land health standards (as articulated in “BLM Handbook 4180-1, Rangeland Health Standards”) in sagegrouse areas will be used to determine the LUP’s effectiveness in meeting the vegetation objectives for sagegrouse habitat set forth in the plan. The field office/ranger district will be responsible for collecting this data. 

In order for this data to be consistent and comparable, common indicators, consistent methods, and an unbiased 

sampling framework will be implemented following the principles in the BLM’s AIM strategy (Taylor et al. 

2014; Toevs et al. 2011; MacKinnon et al. 2011), in the BLM’s Technical Reference “Interpreting Indicators 

of Rangeland Health” (Pellant et al. 2005), and in the HAF (Stiver et al. in press) or other approved WAFWA 

MZ–consistent guidance to measure and monitor sage-grouse habitats. This information will be used to answer 

Question 1 of the Land Use Plan Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 2, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: Sage-grouse areas within the LUP that are achieving 

land health stands (or, if trend data are available, that are making progress toward achieving them)—

particularly the Special Status Species/wildlife habitat land health standard—will be used to determine the 

LUP’s effectiveness in achieving the habitat objectives set forth in the plan. Field offices will follow directions 

in “BLM Handbook 4180-1, Rangeland Health Standards,” to ascertain if sage-grouse areas are achieving or 

D-48 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment
Final EIS Appendix D

making progress toward achieving land health standards. One of the recommended criteria for evaluating this 

land health standard is the HAF indicators.

Calculating Question 3, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The amount of habitat disturbance in sage-grouse areas 

identified in the LUP Amendments will be used to determine the LUP Amendments’ effectiveness in meeting 

the plan’s disturbance objectives. National datasets can be used to calculate the amount of disturbance, but 

field office data will likely increase the accuracy of this estimate. This information will be used to answer 

Question 3 of the Land Use Plan Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 4, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The change in estimated sage-grouse populations will 

be calculated from data provided by the state wildlife agencies, when available, and will be used to determine 

LUP effectiveness. This population data (Section C., Population [Demographics] Monitoring) will be used to 

answer Question 4 of the Land Use Plan Effectiveness Report.

Results of the effectiveness monitoring process for the LUP Amendments will be used to inform the need for 

finer-scale investigations, initiate adaptive management actions as described in the LUP Amendments, initiate 

causation determination, and/or determine if changes to management decisions are warranted. The measures 

used at the broad and mid scales will provide a suite of characteristics for evaluating the effectiveness of the 

adaptive management strategy.

Fine and Site Scales

Fine-scale (third-order) habitat selected by sage-grouse is described as the physical and geographic area within 

home ranges during breeding, summer, and winter periods. At this level, habitat suitability monitoring should 

address factors that affect sage-grouse use of, and movements between, seasonal use areas. The habitat 

monitoring at the fine and site scale (fourth order) should focus on indicators to describe seasonal home ranges 

for sage-grouse associated with a lek or lek group within a population or subpopulation area. Fine- and sitescale monitoring will inform the LUP Amendments effectiveness monitoring (see Section D., Effectiveness 

Monitoring) and the hard and soft triggers identified in the LUP Amendments’ adaptive management section.

The BLM and Forest Service will coordinate with the State of Wyoming to share conservation, disturbance 

and vegetation analysis data to provide a core by core evaluation to make necessary adjustments in activity, 

priorities and other actions.

Site-scale habitat selected by sage-grouse is described as the more detailed vegetation characteristics of 

seasonal habitats. Habitat suitability characteristics include canopy cover and height of sagebrush and the 

associated understory vegetation. They also include vegetation associated with riparian areas, wet meadows, 

and other mesic habitats adjacent to sagebrush that may support sage-grouse habitat needs during different 

stages in their annual cycle.

As described in the Conclusion, details and application of monitoring at the fine and site scales will be 

described in the implementation-level monitoring plan for the Proposed LUP Amendments. The need for fineand site-scale-specific habitat monitoring will vary by area, depending on proposed projects, existing 

conditions, habitat variability, threats, and land health. Examples of fine- and site-scale monitoring include: 

habitat vegetation monitoring to assess current habitat conditions; monitoring and evaluation of the success of 

projects targeting sage-grouse habitat enhancement and/or restoration; and habitat disturbance monitoring to 

provide localized disturbance measures to inform proposed project review and potential mitigation for project 

impacts. Monitoring plans should incorporate the principles outlined in the BLM’s AIM strategy (Toevs et al. 

2011) and in “AIM-Monitoring: A Component of the Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy” 

(Taylor et al. 2014). Approved monitoring methods are:

• “BLM Core Terrestrial Indicators and Methods” (MacKinnon et al. 2011);

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-49
Appendix D Final EIS

• The BLM’s Technical Reference “Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health” (Pellant et al. 2005); 

and,

• “Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Assessment Tool” (Stiver et al. in press).

Other state-specific disturbance tracking models include: the BLM’s Wyoming DDCT

(http://ddct.wygisc.org/) and the BLM’s White River Data Management System in development with the 

USGS. Population monitoring data (in cooperation with state wildlife agencies) should be included during 

evaluation of the effectiveness of actions taken at the fine and site scales.

Fine- and site-scale sage-grouse habitat suitability indicators for seasonal habitats are identified in the HAF. 

The HAF has incorporated the Connelly et al. (2000) sage-grouse guidelines as well as many of the core 

indicators in the AIM strategy (Toevs et al. 2011). There may be a need to develop adjustments to height and 

cover or other site suitability values described in the HAF; any such adjustments should be ecologically 

defensible. To foster consistency, however, adjustments to site suitability values at the local scale should be 

avoided unless there is strong, scientific justification for making those adjustments. That justification should 

be provided. WAFWA MZ adjustments must be supported by regional plant productivity and habitat data for 

the floristic province. If adjustments are made to the site-scale indicators, they must be made using data from 

the appropriate seasonal habitat designation (breeding/nesting, brood-rearing, winter) collected from sagegrouse studies found in the relevant area and peer-reviewed by the appropriate wildlife management 

agency(ies) and researchers.

When conducting land heath assessments, the BLM should follow, at a minimum, “Interpreting Indicators of 

Rangeland Health” (Pellant et. al. 2005) and the “BLM Core Terrestrial Indicators and Methods” (MacKinnon 

et al. 2011). For assessments being conducted in sage-grouse designated management areas, the BLM should 

collect additional data to inform the HAF indicators that have not been collected using the above methods. 

Implementation of the principles outlined in the AIM strategy will allow the data to be used to generate 

unbiased estimates of condition across the area of interest; facilitate consistent data collection and rollup 

analysis among management units; help provide consistent data to inform the classification and interpretation 

of imagery; and provide condition and trend of the indicators describing sagebrush characteristics important 

to sage-grouse habitat (see Section D., Effectiveness Monitoring).

CONCLUSION

This Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework was developed for all of the Final Environmental Impact 

Statements involved in the sage-grouse planning effort. As such, it describes the monitoring activities at the 

broad and mid scales and provides a guide for the BLM to collaborate with partners/other agencies to develop 

the Proposed LUP Amendments’ specific monitoring plan.

THE BLM GREATER SAGE-GROUSE DISTURBANCE AND MONITORING SUBTEAM 

MEMBERSHIP

Gordon Toevs (BLM -WO) 

Duane Dippon (BLM-WO) 

Frank Quamen (BLM-NOC) 

David Wood (BLM-NOC) 

Vicki Herren (BLM-NOC)

Matt Bobo (BLM-NOC)

Michael “Sherm” Karl (BLM-NOC) 

Emily Kachergis (BLM-NOC)

Doug Havlina (BLM-NIFC) 

Mike Pellant (BLM-GBRI) 

John Carlson (BLM-MT) 

Jenny Morton (BLM -WY)

Robin Sell (BLM-CO)

Paul Makela (BLM-ID) 

Renee Chi (BLM-UT) 

Sandra Brewer (BLM-NV) 

Glenn Frederick (BLM-OR) 

Robert Skorkowsky (Forest Service) 

Dalinda Damm (Forest Service)

Rob Mickelsen (Forest Service) 

D-50 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment
Final EIS Appendix D

Tim Love (Forest Service)

Pam Bode (Forest Service)

Lief Wiechman (USFWS)

Lara Juliusson (USFWS)

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-51
Appendix D Final EIS 

Attachment A: An Overview of Monitoring Commitments

Broad and Mid-scales Broad and Mid-scales

Implementation

Broad and Mid-scales

Sagebrush 

Availability

Broad and Mid-scales

Habitat 

Degradation

Broad and Mid-scales

Population

Broad and Mid-scales

Effectiveness

Fine and

Site Scales

How will 

the data 

be used?

Tracking and 

documenting 

implementati

on of land 

use plan 

decisions and 

inform 

adaptive 

management

Tracking 

changes in 

land cover 

(sagebrush) 

and inform 

adaptive 

management

Tracking 

changes in 

disturbance 

(threats) to 

sage-grouse 

habitat and 

inform 

adaptive 

management 

Tracking 

trends in 

sage-grouse 

populations 

(and/or leks; 

as 

determined 

by state 

wildlife 

agencies)

and inform 

adaptive 

management

Characterizing 

the 

relationship 

among 

disturbance, 

implementatio

n actions, and 

sagebrush 

metrics and 

inform 

adaptive 

management

Measuring 

seasonal 

habitat, 

connectivity 

at the fine 

scale, and 

habitat 

conditions at 

the site scale, 

calculating 

disturbance 

and inform 

adaptive 

management

Who is 

collecting 

the data?

BLM FO and 

Forest 

Service 

Forest 

NOC and 

NIFC

National data 

sets (NOC), 

BLM FOs and 

Forest 

Service 

Forests as 

applicable

State wildlife 

agencies 

through 

WAFWA

Comes from 

other broad 

and mid-scale 

monitoring 

types, 

analyzed by 

the NOC

BLM FO and 

SO, Forest 

Service 

Forests and 

RO (with 

partners)

including 

disturbance

How often 

are the 

data 

collected, 

reported 

and made 

available 

to 

USFWS? 

Collected and 

reported 

annually; 

summary 

every 5 years

Updated and 

changes 

reported 

annually; 

summary 

reports every 

5 years

Collected and 

changes 

reported 

annually; 

summary 

reports every 

5 years

State data 

reported

annually per 

WAFWA 

MOU; 

summary 

reports every 

5 years

Collected and 

reported every 

5 years 

(coincident 

with LUP 

evaluations)

Collection 

and trend 

analysis 

ongoing, 

reported 

every 5 years

or as needed 

to inform 

adaptive 

management

What is 

the spatial 

scale?

Summarized 

by LUP with 

flexibility for 

reporting by 

other units

Summarized 

by PACs 

(size 

dependent) 

with flexibility 

for reporting 

by other units

Summarized 

by PACs

(size 

dependent) 

with flexibility 

for reporting 

by other units

Summarized 

by PACs 

(size 

dependent) 

with flexibility 

for reporting 

by other units

Summarized 

by MZ, and 

LUP with 

flexibility for 

reporting by 

other units

(e.g., PAC)

Variable (e.g., 

projects and 

seasonal 

habitats)

What are 

the 

potential 

personnel 

and 

budget 

impacts?

Additional 

capacity or 

reprioritization 

of ongoing 

monitoring 

work and 

budget 

realignment

At a 

minimum, 

current skills 

and capacity 

must be 

maintained; 

data mgmt. 

cost are TBD

At a 

minimum, 

current skills 

and capacity 

must be 

maintained; 

data mgmt. 

and data 

layer 

purchase 

cost are TBD 

No additional 

personnel or 

budget 

impacts for 

BLM or 

Forest 

Service 

Additional 

capacity or reprioritization of 

ongoing 

monitoring 

work and 

budget 

realignment

Additional 

capacity or 

reprioritization 

of ongoing 

monitoring 

work and 

budget 

realignment

D-52 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 
Final EIS Appendix D

Broad and Mid-scales

Implementation

Broad and Mid-scales

Sagebrush 

Availability

Broad and Mid-scales

Habitat 

Degradation

Broad and Mid-scales

Population

Broad and Mid-scales

Effectiveness

Fine and

Site Scales

Who has 

primary 

and 

secondary 

responsibi

lities for 

reporting?

BLM FO & 

SO; Forest 

Service

Forest & RO

BLM & Forest 

Service

Planning

NOC

WO

NOC

BLM SO, 

Forest 

Service RO & 

appropriate 

programs

WAFWA & 

state wildlife 

agencies

BLM SO, 

Forest 

Service RO, 

NOC

Broad and 

mid-scale at 

the NOC, LUP 

at BLM SO, 

Forest Service 

RO

BLM FO & 

Forest 

Service

Forests

BLM SO & 

Forest 

Service RO

What new 

processes

/ tools are

needed?

National 

implementati

on data sets 

and analysis 

tools 

Updates to 

national land 

cover data 

Data 

standards 

and roll-up 

methods for 

these data

Standards in 

population 

monitoring 

(WAFWA)

Reporting 

methodologies

Data 

standards 

data storage; 

and reporting

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-53
Appendix D Final EIS 

Attachment B - List of All Sagebrush Species and Subspecies Included in the Selection 

Criteria for Building the EVT and BPS Layers

D-54 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

• Artemisia arbuscula subspecies longicaulis

• Artemisia arbuscula subspecies longiloba

• Artemisia bigelovii

• Artemisia nova

• Artemisia papposa

• Artemisia pygmaea

• Artemisia rigida

• Artemisia spinescens

• Artemisia tripartita subspecies rupicola

• Artemisia tripartita subspecies tripartita

• Tanacetum nuttallii

• Artemisia cana subspecies bolanderi

• Artemisia cana subspecies cana

• Artemisia cana subspecies viscidula

• Artemisia tridentata subspecies wyomingensis

• Artemisia tridentata subspecies tridentata

• Artemisia tridentata subspecies vaseyana

• Artemisia tridentata subspecies spiciformis

• Artemisia tridentata subspecies xericensis

• Artemisia tridentata variety pauciflora

• Artemisia frigida

• Artemisia pedatifida
Final EIS Appendix D

Attachment C – User and Producer Accuracies for Aggregated Ecological Systems within 

LANDFIRE Map Zones

LANDFIRE Map Zone Name User 

Accuracy

Producer 

Accuracy

% of Map Zone 

within Historic 

Schroeder 

Wyoming Basin 76.9% 90.9% 98.5%

Snake River Plain 68.8% 85.2% 98.4%

Missouri River Plateau 57.7% 100.0% 91.3%

Grand Coulee Basin of the Columbia Plateau 80.0% 80.0% 89.3%

Wyoming Highlands 75.3% 85.9% 88.1%

Western Great Basin 69.3% 75.4% 72.9%

Blue Mountain Region of the Columbia Plateau 85.7% 88.7% 72.7%

Eastern Great Basin 62.7% 80.0% 62.8%

Northwestern Great Plains 76.5% 92.9% 46.3%

Northern Rocky Mountains 72.5% 89.2% 42.5%

Utah High Plateaus 81.8% 78.3% 41.5%

Colorado Plateau 65.3% 76.2% 28.8%

Middle Rocky Mountains 78.6% 73.3% 26.4%

Cascade Mountain Range 57.1% 88.9% 17.3%

Sierra Nevada Mountain Range 0.0% 0.0% 12.3%

Northwestern Rocky Mountains 66.7% 60.0% 7.3%

Southern Rocky Mountains 58.6% 56.7% 7.0%

Northern Cascades 75.0% 75.0% 2.6%

Mogollon Rim 66.7% 100.0% 1.7%

Death Valley Basin 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%

There are two anomalous map zones with 0% user and producer accuracies, attributable to no available 

reference data for the ecological systems of interest.

User accuracy is a map-based accuracy that is computed by looking at the reference data for a class and 

determining the percentage of correct predictions for these samples. For example, if I select any sagebrush 

pixel on the classified map, what is the probability that I'll be standing in a sagebrush stand when I visit that 

pixel location in the field? Commission Error equates to including a pixel in a class when it should have 

been excluded (i.e., commission error = 1 – user’s accuracy).

Producer accuracy is a reference-based accuracy that is computed by looking at the predictions produced 

for a class and determining the percentage of correct predictions. In other words, if I know that a particular 

area is sagebrush (I've been out on the ground to check), what is the probability that the digital map will 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-55 
Appendix D Final EIS

correctly identify that pixel as sagebrush? Omission Error equates to excluding a pixel that should have 

been included in the class (i.e., omission error = 1 – producer’s accuracy).

D-56 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment
Final EIS Appendix D

COT OBJECTIVE 6: PRIORITIZE, FUND AND IMPLEMENT RESEARCH TO 

ADDRESS EXISTING UNCERTAINTIES.

“Increased funding and support for key research projects that will address uncertainties 

associated with sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat management is essential. Effective 

amelioration of threats can only be accomplished if the mechanisms by which those threats 

are imposed on the redundancy, representation, and resilience of the species and its 

habitats are understood.” (COT report 2013)

In accordance with BLM policy, the Record of Decision and Approved Plan will establish intervals and 

standards for evaluations as part of the implementation strategy. Priorities will be established based on the 

identified threats in the planning area, the conservation objectives included as part of the Approved Plan, 

and any potential uncertainties associated with sage-grouse and associated habitat management. A part of 

this strategy will include development of a budget to accomplish each of the identified tasks and fund 

potential research topics to address any uncertainties.

As new science pertaining to sage-grouse and habitat is continuously evolving, refined management 

strategies may be necessary to ensure that BLM and Forest Service are utilizing the most current science, 

information, and data regarding sage-grouse. It is for this reason that BLM and Forest Service have 

collaborated with the State of Wyoming and USFWS to develop an adaptive management strategy as a part 

of the planning process. 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive Management Plan

The Greater Sage-Grouse adaptive management plan provides a means of addressing and responding to 

unintended negative impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat will be addressed before consequences 

become severe or irreversible. This adaptive management plan:

• utilizes science based soft and hard adaptive management triggers,

• addresses multiple scales of data, and

• utilizes an adaptive management working group.

Adaptive Management Triggers

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

in order to continue meeting greater Sage-Grouse Conservation objectives. With respect to sage-grouse, all 

regulatory entities in Wyoming, including the BLM and Forest Service, use soft and hard triggers. Soft and 

hard triggers are focused on three metrics: 1) number of active leks, 2) acres of available habitat, and 3) 

population trends based on annual lek counts.

Soft Triggers: 

Soft triggers are indicators that management or specific activities may not be achieving the intended results 

of conservation action or that unanticipated changes to populations or habitats have occurred that have the 

potential to place habitats or populations at risk. The soft trigger is any deviation from normal trends in 

habitat or population in any given year. Metrics include, but are not limited to, annual lek counts, wing 

counts, aerial surveys, habitat monitoring, and DDCT evaluations. BLM and/or Forest Service field offices, 

with the assistance of their respective land and resource management plan implementation groups, local 

WGFD offices, and local sage-grouse working groups will evaluate the metrics with the AMWG on an 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-57
Appendix D Final EIS

annual basis. The purpose of these strategies is to address localized greater sage-grouse population and 

habitat changes by providing the framework in which management will change if monitoring identifies 

negative population and habitat anomalies in order to avoid crossing a hard trigger threshold.

Hard Triggers: 

Hard triggers are indicators that management is not achieving desired conservation results. Hard triggers 

would be considered a catastrophic indicator that the species is not responding to conservation actions, or 

that a larger-scale impact or set of impacts is having a negative effect.

Within the range of normal population variables, hard triggers shall be determined to take effect when two 

of the three metrics exceeds 60% of normal variability for the area under management in a single year, or 

when any of the three metrics exceeds 40% of normal variability for a three year time period within a fiveyear range of analysis. A minimum of three consecutive years in a five-year period is used to determine 

trends (i.e., Y1-2-3, Y2-3-4, Y3-4-5).

Adaptive Management Response

Soft Triggers Response: 

Soft triggers require immediate monitoring and surveillance to determine causal factors and may require 

curtailment of activities in the short- or long-term, as allowed by law. The project level adaptive 

management strategies will identify appropriate responses where the project’s activities are identified as 

the causal factor. The management agency (BLM and/or Forest Service) and the AMWG will implement 

an appropriate response strategy to address causal factors not attributable to a specific project or to make 

adjustments at a larger regional or state-wide level.

Hard Trigger Response:

Upon determination that a hard trigger has been tripped, the BLM and/or Forest Service will immediately 

defer issuance of discretionary authorizations for new actions within the Biologically Significant Unit for 

a period of 90 days. In addition, within 14 days of a determination that a hard trigger has been tripped, the 

AMWG will convene to develop an interim response strategy and initiate an assessment to determine the 

causal factor or factors (hereafter called the causal factor assessment).

An interim response strategy will be developed, and implemented to the extent permitted by law, within 90 

days of determination that a hard trigger has been tripped. The technical team will be consulted to identify 

the scope and scale of the interim strategy. Based on the recommendation of the AMWG, the BLM and/or 

Forest Service will implement an interim response strategy through an Instruction Memorandum or other 

management mechanisms to direct management until the causal factor(s) and appropriate response(s) can 

be determined. The interim response strategy will consist of appropriate management measures undertaken 

at the project stage, supported by the best available science, to address the specific metric which has been 

tripped and may include deferral of some activities as appropriate. Measures that were analyzed in this EIS 

and the COT, NTT reports, and NPT guidance will be reviewed in addition to current science to identify 

the most appropriate measures to be implemented as part of the interim response strategy. The BLM and/or 

Forest Service will comply with all applicable law in implementing such response(s), and, if applicable, 

will undertake a plan amendment or revision under BLM and/or Forest Service’s planning regulations and 

policies.

Baseline sage-grouse population levels are established by pre-disturbance surveys, reference surveys and 

accounting for regional and statewide trends in population levels. Population counts in Wyoming are 

maintained by the WGFD. Estimates of population are determined based upon survey protocols determined 

D-58 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment
Final EIS Appendix D

by the WGFD, and are implemented consistently throughout the state. Population counts are tracked for 

individual leks and then calculated for each core area (PHMA).

Interim Strategy

An interim response strategy will be developed, and implemented to the extent permitted by law, within 90 

days of determination that a hard trigger has been tripped. The technical team (see Implementation Groups 

below) will be consulted to identify the scope and scale of the interim strategy. Based on the 

recommendation of the AMWG, the BLM and/or Forest Service will implement an interim response 

strategy through an Instruction Memorandum or other management mechanisms to direct management until 

the causal factor(s) and appropriate response(s) can be determined. The interim response strategy will 

consist of appropriate management measures undertaken at the project stage, supported by the best available 

science, to address the specific metric which has been tripped and may include deferral of some activities 

as appropriate. Measures that were analyzed in this EIS and the COT, NTT reports, and NPT guidance will 

be reviewed in addition to current science to identify the most appropriate measures to be implemented as 

part of the interim response strategy. The BLM and/or Forest Service will comply with all applicable law 

in implementing such response(s), and, if applicable, will undertake a plan amendment or revision under 

BLM and/or Forest Service’s planning regulations and policies.

The interim strategy will be implemented for the biologically significant unit (BSU), which, in Wyoming, 

is the core area, regardless of whether the core area crosses multiple planning boundaries. If it has been 

identified that more than one core area has the same hard triggers being tripped, or is trending towards 

triggers being tripped, the interim strategy will be implemented at the appropriate scale.

Causal Factor Assessment

The causal factor assessment will be completed within 180 days of determination that a hard trigger 

threshold has been crossed. Once the causal factor assessment is completed by the AMWG, the interim 

response strategy will be modified to adequately address the causal factors in consultation with the technical 

team. If a causal factor or factors cannot be identified, the interim response strategy shall stay in place until 

the cause can be determined and any new planning decision can be implemented.

EIS Level Projects

Each major project (EIS level) will include adaptive management strategies in support of the population 

management objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse set by the State of Wyoming, and will be consistent with 

the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive Management Plan. These adaptive management strategies 

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

incorporating the best available science. 

Implementation Groups

Sage-Grouse Implementation Team

The State of Wyoming’s strategy is implemented by the Sage-Grouse Implementation Team (SGIT), 

established by Executive Order in 2008 and codified in 2014 by the Wyoming Legislature (W.S. § 9-19-

101). The SGIT is a Governor appointed body with representation by federal agencies (BLM, Forest 

Service, USFWS, and NRCS), state agencies (WGFD, Department of Agriculture, Department of 

Environmental Quality, Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust Fund, Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 

and Office of State Lands and Investments), the Wyoming Legislature, county governments, energy 

developers, mining companies, landowners, and non- governmental organizations. The BLM, USFWS,

NRCS and the Forest Service all have an equal role in the SGIT.

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-59
Appendix D Final EIS

Land and Resource Management Plan – Implementation Teams

Land and Resource Management Plans are implemented through implementation teams. These 

implementation teams include cooperating agencies who participated in the development of this land use 

plan representing local, state, and federal agencies. These implementation teams will coordinate with the 

AMWG and others to evaluate metrics and management responses necessary to meet Greater Sage-Grouse 

conservation objectives within their planning area.

Adaptive Management Working Group and Technical Team

An Adaptive Management Working Group (AMWG) will be established in consultation with the SGIT to 

provide appropriate guidance for agencies with the ability to affect sage-grouse populations and/or habitat 

through their permitting authority. The AMWG will include BLM, Forest Service, USFWS, and State of 

Wyoming. The purpose of this group will be to initiate a response strategy should it be determined that a 

hard trigger has been tripped or if soft triggers are showing a trend across a region. A hard trigger may be 

tripped at any time, thus, upon identification of such event, current available population and habitat data 

will be reviewed by the AMWG with the assistance of a technical team comprised of agency biologists, 

scientists familiar with the Management Zone in question, and other individuals as appropriate (e.g., habitat 

managers, respective landowners, other appropriate representatives) to confirm that a hard trigger has been 

tripped. Upon verification of data showing that a hard trigger has been tripped, the AMWG will convene 

within 14 days.

The AMWG will review monitoring data which has been collected by the appropriate local sage-grouse 

working groups in conformance with data collection standards. This group will meet annually to review all 

data collected in the prior year regarding Greater Sage-Grouse populations and habitats. Monitoring data 

will have been analyzed (by WGFD for population based metrics (leks, wing counts, etc. and by land 

managers [BLM, Forest Service, State of Wyoming] for habitat based metrics [DDCT, etc.]) Should the 

monitoring data suggest a trend toward a soft or hard trigger being tripped, they will 1. Identify what metric 

is indicating that trend (population or habitat); and 2. Identify a technical team to review the data and 

compile a range of activities which may be causing the trend. Should review of the monitoring data identify 

that multiple soft triggers have been tripped in one core area, or the same triggers have been tripped across 

multiple core areas, the technical team will be tasked with verifying the scope and intensity of the trends.

Once the analysis of the trends has been completed by the technical team and reported back to the AMWG, 

the AMWG will make recommendations to the appropriate land managing agency regarding an interim 

adaptive management strategy to be implemented. Implementation will occur via the appropriate 

regulations and policy applicable for that agency. At that time, the State of Wyoming will conduct a review 

of the regulatory authority implementing the Sage-Grouse Core Area Strategy to determine if a State of 

Wyoming adaptive management strategy is warranted.

Upon review of the annual data by the AMWG and technical team, the State of Wyoming, as part of the 

AMWG, will contact neighboring states within the respective Management Zone to inform them of any 

findings. Should a hard trigger be tripped, the trigger which has been tripped and any recommended 

adaptive management strategy being implemented will be shared with the appropriate neighboring state(s). 

Should the need arise for implementation of a multi-state adaptive management strategy; the AMWG will 

coordinate to develop an effective response.

Small Leks 

Small leks will be given special consideration. Due to geographic variations a definition of “small” is not 

provided, rather determination of “small” will be made by the AMWG based upon recommendations of the 

scientific community. Generally, “small” is considered 10 or fewer males for a three year time period within 

D-60 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment
Final EIS Appendix D

a five-year range of analysis. If a trigger is hit based upon such a lek, then the adaptive management working 

group will evaluate the site-specific circumstances and determine appropriate remedial action.

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-61
Appendix D Final EIS

LITERATURE CITED

Baruch-Mordo, S., J.S. Evans, J.P. Severson, D.E. Naugle, J.D. Maestas, J.M. Kiesecker, M.J. Falkowski,

C.A. Hagen, and K.P. Reese. 2013. Saving sage-grouse from the trees: A proactive solution to

reducing a key threat to a candidate species. Biological Conservation 167:233–241.

Connelly, J.W., S.T Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of Greater

Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitats. Unpublished report. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife

Agencies, Cheyenne, WY. Available at http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/docs/Greater_Sagegrouse_Conservation_Assessment_060404.pdf.

Connelly, J.W., K.P. Reese, and M.A. Schroeder. 2003. Monitoring of Greater Sage-Grouse habitats and

populations. Station Bulletin 80. College of Natural Resources Experiment Station, University of

Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage-grouse

populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967–985.

Davies, K.W., C.S. Boyd, J.L. Beck, J.D. Bates, T.J. Svejcar, and M.A. Gregg. 2011. Saving the sagebrush

sea: An ecosystem conservation plan for big sagebrush plant communities. Biological Conservation

144:2573–2584.

Fry, J.A., G. Xian, S. Jin, J.A. Dewitz, C.G. Homer, L. Yang, C.A. Barnes, N.D. Herold, and J.D. Wickham.

2011. Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States.

PE&RS 77(9):858–864.

Garton, E.O., J.W. Connelly, J.S. Horne, C.A. Hagen, A. Moser, and M. Schroeder. 2011. Greater SageGrouse population dynamics and probability of persistence. In: Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and

conservation of a landscape species and its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 293–

382. Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Grove, A.J., C.L. Wambolt, and M.R. Frisina. 2005. Douglas-fir’s effect on mountain big sagebrush

wildlife habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:74–80.

Gruell, G.E., J.K. Brown, and C.L. Bushey. 1986. Prescribed fire opportunities in grasslands invaded by

Douglas-fir: State-of-the-art guidelines. General Technical Report INT-198. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 19pp.

Harju, S.M., M.R. Dzialak, R.C. Taylor, L.D. Hayden-Wing,J.B. Winstead. 2010. Thresholds and time lags

in effects of energy development on Greater Sage-Grouse populations. Journal of Wildlife

Management 74(3):437–448.

Hemstrom, M. A., M. J. Wisdom, M. M. Rowland, B. Wales, W. J. Hann, and R. A. Gravenmier. 2002.

Sagebrush-steppe vegetation dynamics and potential for restoration in the Interior Columbia Basin,

USA. Conservation Biology 16:1243–1255.

Homer, C.G., C.L. Aldridge, D.K. Meyer, M.J. Coan, and Z.H. Bowen. 2009. Multiscale sagebrush

rangeland habitat modeling in southwest Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report

2008–1027. 14pp.

D-62 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment
Final EIS Appendix D

Johnson, D.H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource

preference. Ecology 61:65–71.

Knick, S.T., and J.W. Connelly (editors). 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and conservation of a

landscape species and its habitats. Studiesin Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of California Press,

Berkeley, CA.

Knick, S.T., and S.E. Hanser. 2011. Connecting pattern and process in Greater Sage-Grouse populations

and sagebrush landscapes. In: Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and conservation of a landscape 

species and its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 383–405. Studies in Avian

Biology, vol. 38. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Knick, S.T., S.E. Hanser, R.F. Miller, D.A. Pyke, M.J. Wisdom, S.P. Finn, E.T. Rinkes, and C.J. Henny.

2011. Ecological influence and pathways of land use in sagebrush. In: Greater Sage-Grouse:

Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W.

Connelly, 203–251. Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of California Press, Berkeley,

CA.

LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type layer. (2013, June – last update.) U.S. Department of

the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. [Online.] Available at: http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/

[2013, May 8].

Leu, M., and S.E. Hanser. 2011. Influences of the human footprint on sagebrush landscape patterns:

implications for sage-grouse conservation. In: Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and conservation of

a landscape species and its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 253–271. Studies in

Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

MacKinnon, W.C., J.W. Karl, G.R. Toevs, J.J. Taylor, M. Karl, C.S. Spurrier, and J.E. Herrick. 2011. BLM

core terrestrial indicators and methods. Tech Note 440. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO.

Manier, D.J., D.J.A Wood, Z.H. Bowen, R.M. Donovan, M.J. Holloran, L.M. Juliusson, K.S. Mayne, S.J.

Oyler-McCance, F.R. Quamen, D.J. Saher, and A.J. Titolo. 2013. Summary of science, activities,

programs, and policies that influence the rangewide conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse

(Centrocercus urophasianus): U.S. Geological Survey Open–File Report 2013–1098. 170pp.

NatureServe. 2011. International ecological classification standard: Terrestrial ecologicalclassifications.

NatureServe Central Databases, Arlington, VA. Data current as of July 31, 2011.

Ong, S., C. Campbell, P. Denholm, R. Margolis, and G. Heath. 2013. Land-use requirementsfor solar power

plants in the United States. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy

Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-56290. 39pp. Available at:

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf.

Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D.A. Pyke, and J.E. Herrick. 2005. Interpreting indicators of rangeland health,

version 4. Technical Reference 1734-6. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, National Science and Technology Center, Denver, CO. BLM/WO/ST00/001+1734/REV05. 122pp.

Perry, J. Personal communication. February 12, 2014.

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-63
Appendix D Final EIS

Pyke, D.A. 2011. Restoring and rehabilitating sagebrush habitats. In: Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and

conservation of a landscape species and its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 531–

548. Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Schroeder, M.A., C.L. Aldridge, A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, C.E. Braun, S.D. Bunnell, J.W. Connelly, P.A.

Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, G.D. Kobriger, S.M. McAdam, C.W. McCarthy, J.J.

McCarthy, D.L. Mitchell, E.V. Rickerson, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Distribution of sage-grouse in

North America. Condor 106: 363–376.

Stiver, S.J., A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, S.D. Bunnell, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, C.W. McCarthy,

and M.A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater Sage‐Grouse comprehensive conservation strategy. Unpublished

report. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, WY. Available at

http://www.wafwa.org/documents/pdf/GreaterSage-grouseConservationStrategy2006.pdf.

Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes, D.E. Naugle, P.D. Makela, D.A. Nance, and J.W. Karl. In press.

Sage-grouse habitat assessment framework: Multiscale habitat assessment tool. Bureau of Land 

Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Technical Reference. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO.

Taylor, J., E. Kachergis, G. Toevs, J. Karl, M. Bobo, M. Karl, S. Miller, and C. Spurrier. 2014. AIMmonitoring: A component of the BLM assessment, inventory, and monitoring strategy. Tech Note

445. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center,

Denver, CO.

Toevs, G.R., J.J. Taylor, C.S. Spurrier, W.C. MacKinnon, M.R. Bobo. 2011. Bureau of Land Management

assessment, inventory, and monitoring strategy: For integrated renewable resources management.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver,

CO.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer. {YEAR}.

Published crop-specific data layer [online]. USDA-NASS, Washington, D.C. Available at

http://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/(accessed {DATE}; verified {DATE}).

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Handbook H-4180-1,

Release 4-107. Rangeland health standards handbook. Available at http://www.blm.gov/style/ 

medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.61484.File.dat/

h4180-1.pdf.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2005. Wind Energy Development 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). BLM Washington Office, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2011. BLM national Greater Sage-Grouse

land use planning strategy. Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-044. BLM Washington Office,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; 12-month findings for petitions to list the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus

urophasianus) as threatened or endangered. Proposed Rule. Federal Register 75: 13910–14014

(March 23, 2010).

D-64 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment
Final EIS Appendix D

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus

urophasianus) conservation objectives: Final report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO.

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-65 
Appendix D Final EIS 

This page intentionally left blank.

D-66 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment